The ethnographic study of corruption: ethical, methodological and analytical issues.

1. The ethnographic study of corruption: ethical, methodological and analytical issues. Davide Torsello

2. Outline • 1. Integrity and corruption defined • 2. The “silence” of anthropology • 3. Ethical and epistemic issues • 4. Research fields • 5. Methodological issues, ANTICORRP methodology • 6. Conclusions: interdisciplinary synergies

3. 1. Integrity and Corruption: definitions Integrity“The steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code”(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language )≠ Corruption “The abuse of public office for private or exclusive gain” (World Bank, with addition)

4. Underlying principles (manifest) • Moral (factual, purpose oriented, emic, mores, customs) • Ethical (general, etic, ethos, character, credibility in Aristotle’s Rhetoric) • Code (systematic collection of regulations and laws) • Public office • Private gain • Exclusiveness (not allowing something/somebody else)

5. Underlying principles (hidden) • Steadfast: stead (position/to be of advantage to) + fast (characterized by lack of moral conventions) • Moral: from factual, emic observation: Is that a universal claim? • Code: a system of symbols having certain arbitrary meanings. Is there any form of relativism? • Public/private: Are these categories clearly definable in any culture/social context? • Exclusive: ..mechanisms define boundaries that exclude and include

6. Problems with (claims of): • Universality • Objectivity • Firmness • Determination of group boundaries • Determination of roles • And with: gain: rationality?

7. 2. The “silence” of anthropology • Less than 2% of literature on corruption is based on ethnographic research. • After Scott (1972) the next volume on corruption is in 2004 • So far 9 books in anthropology deal explicitly with corruption (4 monographs) • Journal publications are scattered, very few articles focus on corruption/integrity only

8. 3. Ethical issues • Ethnographic data expose “informants” • It is difficult to start a field research on corruption as main topic (interpersonal trust) • Are second-hand data reliable? • Imposition of a moral judgment on local people by the researcher • How to observe corrupt deeds?

9. 3. Epistemic issues • Eurocentrism of the notion • Public-private division is often arbitrary • Relativism of moral claims • Legal codes are pluralistic and dynamic • Ethnographic research unveils grey areas, are existing models fit enough for them? • If corruption is a cultural phenomenon, then how to avoid essentializations?

10. 4. Research fields The state • Regulating weak or capturing agent? • Governmentality legitimized by corruption • Unease to deal with the dichotomy legality/illegality • Corruption as discursive form of empowerment

11. Morality • Conflicting, overlapping, polysemic moralities • The ethos argument is about excessive essentialization • Morality is a social construct, mediated, negotiated and interpreted differently • Trust, moral economy generated by face-to-face interaction

12. Types of corruption • Petty instead of grand corruption • Corruption as processual force (development, EU enlargement, post-colonialism) • Corruption as social exchange (blat, guanxi, kone) • Integrity and the economic crisis

13. Culture • Refuse culturalistic approaches: tendency towards particularism • Yet: universal appeal of corruption • History, comparison can substantiate culture • Can corruption perception be usefully measured through cultural indicators?

14. Discourses • Corruption and power as discourses • Increase public awareness (media and third sector) • Foster political and collective action • Lower transaction costs • Excessive corruption talk brings cynicism, it is instrumentalized, but citizens exchange informations

15. 5. Methodology(strenghts) • Ethnographic research explores ground-level practices and discourses • Winning trust may lead to disclosing of information and true opinions • Interviews allow direct interaction with key personalities • Participant observation allows to test possible gaps between ideas and practice • Complemented with other disciplinary analyses can offer a good balance of qualitative-quantitative data

16. Methodology(weaknesses) • Uneasy balance particularism/universalism • Caution to denounce “informants” may hamper the success of field research • Excessive weight on discursive aspects is of little interdisciplinary contribution • Too little emphasis on measurement and impacts on perception

17. ANTICORRP Methodology • Complexity of the task requires multiple research methods • Difficulty to observe, attention on phenomena that converge on integrity/corruption • 9 case studies treated comparatively, to a certain extent • Methods include: participant observation, interviews, focus groups, questionnaire survey

18. Common set of research issues among countries • One original research field per country:ITALY: business and local politicsHUNGARY: public sectorBOSNIA: educationJAPAN: party financingRUSSIA: state-businessTURKEY: public procurement, non-profitKOSOVO: donor agenciesMEXICO: health sectorTANZANIA: health sector

19. Survey questionnaire • Common, regular citizens • Sections:1. Personal data2. Local institutions (important for wellbeing, public officers, trust, quality of services)3. Local issues (informal practices, bad practices, who might help)4. Social norms (gift, reciprocity, hospitality, simulation stories, leadership)5. Values (Cultural Theory)

20. 6. Conclusion: Contributions from anthropology • Integrity/corruption as complex notions which are neither static nor universally equal in place • Regulations and policies: do they express the particular needs of a societal context? • Volatility of markets, economic recession, state capture and uncontrolled development facilitate opaque practices • Less concern with culture and more with socio-political conditions • Discursive dimension may tell of the gap between practices and ideas • Study of values and social norms may help to understand the persistence and spreading of corruption