Public corruption involves the violation of the public’s trust by individuals who use their influence for personal gain. It is a federal law violation for any official at the local, state, or federal government level to request for or receive a valuable item in exchange for an official act. Public corruption is detrimental since it erodes the trust individuals have in the public sector to fulfill their mandate to citizens. It also wastes tax revenues that have been set aside for vital community projects meaning that citizens have to bear with poor quality offerings or infrastructure. Corruption also shuts out domestic and foreign investment as a result of the lack of incentives. Individual, organizational, and societal explanations can be used in explaining public corruption.
Individual, Organizational, and Societal Explanations
Individual explanations of public corruption focus on a single person. Such explanations reveal how public corruption can be caused by factors within the individual, for instance, personality. The acts of the individual are unique to them as a result of a combination of experiential and biological variables. Each individual has their own distinct experiences and history. Character and personality affect how individuals behave and, in such a case, determine whether an individual will engage in public corruption (Alt & Lassen, 2012) . One of the personality traits that can be used in explaining why an individual commits public corruption acts is greed. An official is likely to engage in public corruption acts if they have greed for money.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Organizational explanations of public corruption focus on a single organization. The practices of every organization are unique to them due to the presence of different individuals, structures, goals, cultures, policies, procedures, and processes. Organization explanations reveal the factors within the organization which cause the entity to engage in public corruption. Such factors provide an opportunity for individuals in the organization to abuse their position of power for individual benefit instead of the purpose for which power was granted. Some of the organizational explanations of public corruption include organizational culture and lack of ethical policies in the entity. The organization’s culture may promote corruption causing the corruption behavior to be normalized. If an organization lacks a policy stipulating why officials should not engage in corruption, a corrupt mentality is likely to be adopted and normalized (Liu et al., 2021) . In such cases, officials are likely to engage in public corruption acts such as bribery and embezzlement.
Societal explanations focus on the society at large in explaining the causes of public corruption. Each society is different since it has different basic elements, including individuals, families, communities, businesses, domestic organizations, and local governments. In addition, each society has its shared mix of norms, beliefs, attitudes, and traditions. Such elements are deciding factors with regard to public corruption behavior. Different societies have differing attitudes with regard to public corruption. Some societies are completely intolerant to corruption, while others have normalized corruption. Patriarchal societies are prone to public corruption since research has shown men are less reliable and more prone to corruption than their female counterparts (Šumah, 2018) . Societal explanations of public corruption are focused on demographics and, in this case, are predominantly social factors.
Theory Examples
Individual explanations can be regarded as theories that explain why individual corruption occurs in the public sector. The greed personality is a theory which can explain why individual engage in corrupt acts. A greedy individual seeks to realize personal gains in meeting their private interests at the expense of other individuals. In this case, the individual in a position of authority abuses their position by engaging in bribery, extortion, or embezzlement. An example of a film that depicts individual corruption is House of Cards . The film series is about a power-hungry Congressman and his equally conniving wife and their influence on American politics. It also reveals the high level of greed possessed by the Congressman. In the film, Congressman Frank Underwood, the protagonist, engages in public corruption acts through the bribing of public officials. In one scene, Congressman Underwood discovers that another Congressman was arrested for drunk driving. Congressman Underwood bribes the police commissioner to cover up the incident of the other Congressman in exchange for supporting the commissioner’s mayoral campaign. In such a case, Congressman Underwood buys the loyalty of the other Congressman. The hunger and greed for power drove Congressman Underwood to commit corrupt acts. The conduct of Congressman Underwood is viewed unfavorably by the audience since it involves blackmailing another Congressman. In addition, Congressman Underwood’s conduct involves the abuse of power conferred to him as a member of Congress. In this case, the viewers perceive such conduct as unfavorable since it shows selfishness rather than service.
Organizational explanations are models which can also be used in explaining corrupt behavior among public officials. In the organizational setting, collective behavior determines the organization's culture. People in the organization or institution rationalize their own behavior based on what other individuals will do in a similar situation. If other individuals commit corrupt acts, an individual in the same organization is likely to rationalize their behavior based on such acts. If the collective behavior resists anti-corruption efforts, it is highly likely that public corruption acts will be normalized. This theory is illustrated in the film The Wolf of Wall Street . The film depicts fraud, a form of organizational corruption given that the perpetrators use their position of trust for their personal benefit instead of the purposes for which trust was granted. In the film Jordan Belfort, the protagonist, and Danny Azoff, his business associate launch a company, Stratton Oakmont, for personal benefit at the expense of shareholders. Belfort, Azoff, and other employees at the entity abuse their position of trust for their personal benefit rather than the purpose of serving investors. They defraud the investors and end up becoming rich at the cost of the latter. The conduct of Belfort and his colleagues at the entity is perceived as unfavorable by the viewers since it involves defrauding innocent people. Belfort and his counterparts, who are stock traders, are trusted by the investors comprising working individuals keen on earning a return on their hard-earned money. Their conduct involving the betrayal of the investors' trust causes the viewers to worry for the investors.
Societal explanations represent theories about the norms, beliefs, attitudes, and traditions with regard to explaining why public corruption occurs in society. Differences in beliefs and attitudes about public corruption will determine whether society members punish corrupt behavior. If corruption is not punished, it will be normalized by the specific society. This theory is showcased in the film series Narcos . The series shows rampant corruption in Colombian society. It shows how Pablo Escobar, the protagonist, expanded his illegal drug business by engaging in public corruption, for instance, by bribing police officers and politicians. In Escobar’s world, every individual is either a friend or an enemy meaning that if the individual cannot be bribed, they must be killed. Pablo’s habits of working result in unabated public corruption in the society in which he lives in.
Solutions
Individual corruption can be reduced by closely monitoring the activities of public officials to keep them on toes with regard to acting transparently. The close scrutiny of such individuals will deter them from engaging in public corruption behavior. In addition, more whistleblowing channels should be established to encourage individuals to speak up in revealing public corruption acts by individuals in power. The fear of being caught and exposed may act as a deterrence to such behavior. Organizational corruption can be reduced or eliminated by establishing anti-bribery and anti-corruption policies, which will inform individuals of rules and expectations regarding public corruption (Lindstedt & Naurin, 2010) . The individuals in positions of power or trust will know what is and not acceptable in terms of gifts, donations, hospitality, or sponsorship. Checklists and travel guidelines can also be used in establishing processes that assist such individuals in remembering what is and is not allowed. Establishing an anti-bribery culture can go a long way in sending a clear message from the top management to the lower levels of the entity or institution. In this case, people at the top will be held accountable and, in such a case, will set an example for others to follow. Society corruption can be reduced through bribery training to create awareness regarding the negative consequences of accepting a bribe. Such training will educate individuals on how to behave if they are in a situation in which a bribe is offered. The message should also focus on explaining why corruption is detrimental to society.
Conclusion
Overall, public corruption can be explained in terms of individual, organizational, and societal explanations. Individual explanations center on a single individual, while organizational explanations focus on an organization or society. Societal explanations center on one society, and they consider factors such as traditions, customs, beliefs, and attitudes. Public corruption can be reduced by closely monitoring the activities of public officials, establishing anti-bribery policies, and promoting an anti-corruption culture.
References
Alt, J. E., & Lassen, D. D. (2012). Enforcement and public corruption: Evidence from the American states. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , 30 (2), 306-338. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ews036
Lindstedt, C., & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review , 31 (3), 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110377602
Liu, C., Mikesell, J., & Moldogaziev, T. T. (2021). Public corruption and pension underfunding in the American States. The American Review of Public Administration , 0275074021992891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074021992891
Šumah, Š. (2018). Corruption, causes and consequences. Trade and Global Market . https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72953
