PATTERNS OF UNDERSTANDING OF CORRUPTION AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

Transcription

1 Towards Corruption and Corruption Practice: Double Standards or Cognitive Dissonance? Olga Guzhva Assistant Professor Department of Sociology V.N. Karazin Kharkov National University Ukraine Corruption counteraction requires definite and consistent ideas about the essence and forms of corrupt behaviour. In other words, in the course of development and implementation of a national anticorruption policy, it is important to consider existing standards or stereotypes in the understanding of corruption. People rely on such standards in their assessments of various dimensions of corruption, which, sometimes, differ from a legislative vision of the essence and forms of corruption entirely. In the countries where the process of implementation of the international anticorruption conventions containing fundamental or model descriptions of elements of corruption crimes has not been completed, the picture is even more complicated. For instance, prior to June 2009 (the first attempt to pass the anticorruption package ), only an insignificant number of administrative offences was classified as corruption under the Ukrainian law. At the same time, various types of actions were regarded as corruption both by the public and by politicians. From a legal standpoint, there is presumed knowledge of the law. In other words, for the purposes of law enforcement, it is presumed that every citizen is aware of the types of actions that are considered corruption crimes or administrative corruption offences in a given society. However, social reality considerably deviates from the regulatory model of the anticorruption laws. Besides, the problem in this case is much more complex than a mere knowledge of respective legal provisions. In the public opinion, corruption may take various forms; and a model described in an anticorruption law is not always acceptable for people. Moreover, there are types of actions that look like corruption but are not corruption from a legal perspective; conversely, circumstances that may not look corrupt at first sight are corruption under the law. It is very important to determine how respondents understand corruption and how they distinguish its various forms in specific everyday situations. From a socio cultural perspective, perceived assessments of corruption depend on the public conceptions of corruption. PATTERNS OF UNDERSTANDING OF CORRUPTION AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON The analysis, specifically, understanding of corruption as a certain type of social phenomena and understanding of particular types of corrupt actions. The first perspective sought to collect the data on the most common public stereotypes forming the grounds for decision-making in specific and true-life situations that reveal general outlines of the corruption understanding. In-depth interviews were used at this stage. The method allows obtaining accurate information on the internal mechanisms of shaping of opinions and perceptions that are associated with the essence of corruption phenomenon. Given that the interviews were conducted with representatives of different social and professional groups, an interpretation of the findings allows indentifying a number of principal features in the understanding of corruption in the Ukrainian society.

2 Shaping of corruption understanding primarily depends on a number of mass mind frames that set stereotype interpretations of corruption and its prevalence that are the most common in the Ukrainian society. The following stereotypes deserve a special attention. 1. Personification of corruption This trend is evident in the association of corruption in a particular sphere with specific notorious persons (for instance, Pavlo Lazarenko, Leonid Kuchma etc.), or with a construct (for instance, members of parliament, politicians, judges, the government etc.) The underlying basis for this frame is a concept that corruption is a result of corrupt human nature. Respectively, all efforts to counter corruption become explicitly personalized, i.e. we should confront specific individuals instead of the system or its institutes. Corruption reigns only at the top, it is where the big money is, and those things that are going on at the level of ordinary people are just an attempt to simplify life. (О., female, 29 years of age, entrepreneur). The first thing that comes to mind is a civil servant receiving an envelope with cash in his office. (К., male, 25 years of age, graduate degree, human resources manager) However, most often this stereotype shows in the assessments of actions of specific individuals, in particular, at the top government level that appear in the political discourse. 2. Corruption implies low quality public services and low efficiency of operations of public institutions in general. This approach is evident in the tendency to explain poor quality services, rude attitude of public officials and negligent performance of office duties by corruption. This stereotype is also politically sensitive. Taking into account that the in-depth interviews were held over a relatively long period of time that coincided with the establishment of the new power, this correlation was particularly evident. The respondents often used explanations that were founded on the key statements of the new government about flaws in the system, legacy of the previous regime etc. First of all, these are public officials, bribes, when you come to a hospital and have to give a chocolate bar on every occasion to do something; it s collection of money in schools and kindergartens for something they are in need of; putting UAH between pages when you need to get a certificate, when under the law it takes two weeks and it took me four months to get it. It s already a system. (N., female, 30 years of age, works a secretary) corruption in Ukraine is a system, it s a general rule in contacts with public officials. (K., 47 years of age, private entrepreneur, graduate degree, married) Negligent performance of official duties is a common thing in this country. It used to be different before they brought it in. They are used to do it this way. (G., female, 43 years of age, married, a faculty member)

3 Such actions are always corruption and there are no exceptions because they (various big and petty public officials make a profit on us and do not care, if these 100 UAH could be all one has and one has to give them away like that only so they do their job!!! (V., 31 years of age, a schoolteacher) 3. Double standards in the interpretation of corruption The analysis of the transcripts of the in-depth interviews suggests the following trend in the understanding of corruption. On the one hand, corruption is denounced and seen as a negative practice; on the other hand, there are infinite excuses for it. This trend is quite common. In most cases, corrupt practices are justified by conventions: it s conventional in the society, everybody s doing it and it does not harm anyone are commonly used phrases to explain own actions, although corrupt actions of others are classified as crimes. Apart from this purely subjective approach, there are objective reasons for corruption being mentioned as well. They also rely on a perception that, on the one hand, corruption is a socially dangerous and criminal practice but, at the same time, it is an integral part of life, a habit of forced use of corruption means caused by social economic factors. One of the respondents has aptly pointed out the following: So, on the one hand, corruption is believed to be socially inacceptable, it is denounced by the mass media, curbing of corruption is an ever-present element of election campaigns of nearly every single political force. On the other hand, corruption has become an integral element of life of average Ukrainians. Many of us attempt to bribe even when nobody s asking for it. public officials (physicians, MPs, traffic police and police officers etc.) should live on their salary, and when they receive any other income (in addition to bonuses, premiums etc.) or, the more so, receive it in order to render a service by abusing their office, it s always a crime. From a legal point of view. However, there is a moral aspect as well. In addition, everyone understands that civil servants cannot survive on their salary. Therefore, from a moral prospective, I close my eyes to such aid to a traffic police officer to speed up issuing of papers, a physician to prescribe medications that will help. I understand, they are all human beings and their children need food. However, there s a limit to everything, and a multimillion bribe for a land lot owned by the state or for the discharge of a criminal is not justifiable by any morals. (І., female of retirement age, a working English teacher). Justification of corruption in specific circumstances that has acquired features of a firmly instilled social stereotype is the key characteristic of double standards in the understanding of corruption. The following excuses for corruption stated by respondents are worth mentioning: А. Corruption is a part of the national tradition: Corruption might be a national tradition, it s a typical trait of our people. (О., male, an employee of a construction firm) B. Actions viewed as corruption are in fact a gesture of gratitude or help:

4 In this country, corruption in majority of cases is only a gesture of gratitude or rendering assistance needed and not a wrongful behaviour (О., female,, 67 years of age, retired); probably nepotism is not corruption really. Maybe assisting in settling some problems, even a promotion or a title, if needed, these actions are not corruption. It s more of a mutual help. (Female, 43 years of age, married, a faculty member) there s gratitude. When one person helps another one to deal with problems, these are just human relations. If it is not systematic, it s not corruption. (Р., female, 40 years of age, a housewife) C. Corruption is a habit: We encourage corruption ourselves. I want my child to go to this kindergarten, and not that one, this one, which is close to my house. I can afford it and I pay, and she goes to the kindergarten I want. We are used to the fact that we have to give if we want to get what we want. We profess that those who do not give don t get. (О., 29 years of age, entrepreneur); Corruption has already become a habit and it s a common thing that we do not view it as something illegal. Indeed, one may thank a physician, for instance, but why? It s his immediate duty to provide care to me and to my child we bring money everywhere, and it is subconscious, as a rule. (О., female, 29 years of age, private business) D. Corruption is a result of low wages and poor remuneration of the civil servants and public sector employees, therefore, corruption deals should not be condemned: for instance, when one gives money to a physician to perform a surgery well, to buy good medications, to assign a nurse to attend, it s not corruption. Clearly, from a moral perspective it does not seem right, however, the reality is that this the physician who with millions of other employees in this country who do not even live but survive, who is downgraded to a rank of a destitute, is not thinking about the surgery because he is concerned with meeting his ends. (С., male, a farm manager); In some instances, corruption could be viewed as a gratuity for the work performed; it could take a monetary form (a small amount of money, 5-10 UAH) or a form of a box of chocolates. Therefore, this should not be seen as bribery as opposed to getting a land lot for UAH. In my opinion, I can give a chocolate bar to a nurse (not more) for getting me on a drip because I understand that she receives 800 UAH and she cannot afford chocolates, because she has to spend on more important things (in most cases it s just enough to pay utility bills.) (An engineer, male, 45 years of age) The studies on the gender-related justification of corruption suggest that there are gender-based discrepancies in the preferred explanations of corruption. Men are more direct in classifying such actions as corruption; they justify corrupt actions both on the part of public officials and on the part of those who offer bribes less frequently. Women, as a rule, tend to justify bribery of public officials by a sincere desire to repay for a favour and corrupt actions of public officials by unfairly low salaries and a need to feed the family.

5 This said, there is a rather large group of the respondents who do not accept corruption at all and do not look for or find any justifications for corrupt actions..they do their job, they get salary for it. (N., female, 30 years of age, married, works as a secretary in a private firm);... All this is corruption, even small tips, gifts etc. It starts small and turns into something very big. (G., 43 years of age, married, a faculty member); Abusing your office, blackmailing, collecting compromising evidence about people they are going to extort money from, intimidation, threats etc. (І., female of retirement age, a working teacher of English) Some corruption acts have merged into our lives as something usual and are not perceived as crimes. But still, it s corruption!... (K., 47 years of age, a private entrepreneur, graduate degree, married); Generally speaking, corruption is relations between an individual who needs something and another individual who can assist in this matter, but the problem is that often this individual has a right to get the same results on legal grounds. So, corruption is relations between one party that has a claim on something or possibly wants something and another party, a civil servant as a rule, who extorts a bribe for simply doing his job, or creates a situation when it s simply impossible to settle even an trivial matter. (С., male, a farm manager in the Mykolayiv Region) Accordingly, the survey suggests that there is a controversial mixture of discontent with corruption and its denunciation and a tendency to justify its use in certain everyday circumstances, i.e. it reveals double standards in the understanding of corruption prevailing in the mass mind. 4. Situational definition of corruption In the public view, corruption is, most often, associated with certain corrupt circumstances or corruption experienced by respondents or their relatives or friends. The analysis of the findings of the in-depth interviews also suggests that there is a clear public stereotype to classify some cases as corruption, on the one hand, and as a voluntary payment for some privileges or a conventional legitimate gratitude, on the other hand. In particular, in order to find a more specific definition to the public understanding of corruption, the respondents were offered to answer the question Are these actions always corruption? Would they possibly stop being corruption under some circumstances? The responses to these questions confirmed the presence of the above stereotype. Moreover, we have uncovered that this stereotype is sometimes combined with various mindsets (frames) used to explain a situation, including the following: І. It is corruption only when public officials intentionally create particular circumstances or otherwise extort a bribe or another form of illegal benefit. If a public official acts legally or is neutral, then giving him/her certain benefits is not corruption but rather a sincere gesture of gratitude. It is corruption only when an official seeks to receive a bribe, seeks to achieve this goal by any means, and when an applicant is willing, from the bottom of the heart,

6 to thank someone who has helped him/her in dealing with an issue, in this case, such actions are not corruption, they are sincere, they are a gesture of gratitude for the actions that has been already taken (L., female of retirement age, a working teacher of English); Some situations are not corruption because they (public officials) act legally and then people reward them as a gesture of gratitude. But only when this reward is not a condition of the actions). (A private entrepreneur, male, 30 years of age, degree in economics); Instances when I, for instance, decide to pay back a physician for medical care are not corruption as opposed to a situation when money are literally being pulled off from me. (Female, 55 years of age, a support staff member) ІІ. Classification of actions as corruption depends on the amount of the bribe and the nature of the issue settled in the result of a corruption deal: We should not, probably, always blame those who take bribes, because there are different amounts involved and different forms. Not everybody in our country receives sufficient salaries and we all want to live better, without thinking whether it is a crime or not, because we all have families we have to provide for. (Male, 40 years of age, technical profession, publicly owned company) However, there s a limit to everything, and a multimillion bribe for a land lot owned by the state or for the discharge of a criminal is not justifiable by any standards. (І., female of retirement age, a working teacher of English). In other words, there is a division into large-scale corruption and everyday corruption commonly accepted in the contemporary studies on corruption. In the general public opinion, a similar division is an established stereotype that is becoming one of the most common motives to justify corruption. The findings of the in-depth interviews also point to another quite common idea that corruption is somewhere else, in the upper circles of power, and things happening with average people are not corruption. In these cases, the arguments put forward to justify own attitude involve a variety of circumstances. In particular, linking corruption to the size of an illegitimate benefit is a quite important aspect, considering possible perspectives of legislative regulation of liability for corruption. Respondents point out that the amount of money involved in corrupt transactions is important. ІІІ. A case when an individual who has means to pay a public official to obtain certain benefits or to simplify a procedure does so is not viewed as corruption. In some circumstances, in contacts with the government, if I can afford to spend a certain amount of money to bribe and it would simplify the process of decision-making or would bring me advantages, it is not corruption. This case is the most striking example of the functional attitude to corruption of some citizens. To conclude, citizens, as a rule, classify as corruption only those actions of public officials that involve extortion or intentional creation of conditions to incite a corrupt

7 payment. The generally accepted definition of corruption also depends on the amount of corrupt payment and the nature of the issue to be settled, as well as the personality of the inducer and the outcomes of the deal. Cases where corruption benefits the individual who bribes a public official, the amount of bribery is not large and the nature of the issue involved does not substantially affect the interests of the public or an individual should not be viewed as corruption. 5. Forced nature of corruption This stereotype perception of corruption is similar to the above-mentioned rationalized approach to the corruption understanding. However, this approach justifies not the mere fact of widespread corruption but rather the reasons why people engage in corruption deals. In other words, people are placed in circumstances when it becomes very difficult if not impossible to get a required service or result: corruption is any actions aiming at illegitimate enrichment (even when it implies a small amount, such as 100 UAH) by, so to say, fleecing poor citizens, who, for instance, need to have an urgent surgery done, and a surgeon refuses to do it alluding to a lack of equipment or medications, and he delays the time of surgery while this could be dangerous for our health, therefore we, basically, have to act you give money and they find everything. (Female, 55 years of age, a technical support staff member); I got a job, I pay for this, but I receive an opportunity to earn my crust. I wish corruption were only in one company, but it has penetrated into all spheres of our life. Therefore, there is nothing to choose from, pay if you want to get a job!... (Female, 29 years of age, an entrepreneur) Therefore, corruption is everywhere. Moreover, there are excuses not only for own approaches, there are excuses for the attitude of those who extort. Most often, the arguments involved include statements about low salaries and poor care on the part of the state. In this interpretation, corruption is viewed as a mutual assistance to a person like me who needs to feed the family. In this case, the state (the government) is most often to blame because it pays public officials so little. It suggests an inclination to shift responsibly for corruption on an abstract entity instead of specific parties to a corruption deal. Here, we may talk about stereotype shifting of responsibility for corrupt practices. In short, corruption is perceived as an illegal act, although of a constrained nature, because there is a system in place in the society that forces people to engage in corrupt transactions. In this respect, there is an old saying in Ukraine wheels don't run without oil. Besides, the state is to blame; it has not ensured proper operations of public institutions and a reasonable salary level for civil servants and public sector employees. 6. Stereotype labeling of certain spheres In the analysis of the survey and in-depth interview findings, we have uncovered a clear trend to stereotypically label certain sectors and settings that persistently are associated with corruption in the opinion of the general public. The institutions affected include educational and medical settings, courts, law enforcement and selfgovernment bodies of various levels. It is worth noting, that these stigmas create an

8 impression of pervasive and extensive corruption in the society in general and distort the real picture. In conclusion, we would like to summarize the key traits in the understanding of corruption in the mass mind of Ukrainians: - personification of corruption; - attribution of the poor quality of services and low efficiency of public officials and public bodies to corruption - double standards in the understanding of corruption: denouncing corruption, on the one hand, and condoning it, on the other hand - situational definition of corruption: some actions are classified as corruption subject to specific life circumstances. It suggests high tolerance and a functional attitude to corruption on the part of the general public - forced nature of corruption: corruption prevails because the state places both officials and citizens in situation where corruption is a means of survival for both of them - stereotype labeling of certain sectors resulting in a distortion of the real corruption picture in the country in general. SOCIO CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE UNDERSTANDING AND PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION The attitude to corruption is always controversial and has an emotional overtone. Besides, as any other society, Ukraine has established traditional frames in perception of certain actions or cases that are being actively promoted by the mass media and, with time, gradually acquire characteristics of legitimate practices in the public opinion. Common public stereotypes in perception of corruption and corrupt actions have socio cultural peculiarities and are a result of the poor awareness and a lack of understanding of corruption by the population. In order to identify the socio cultural factors affecting the public understanding and perception of corruption, we have examined sources of information on corruption that are used by the public as well as familiarity of the public with the most significant anticorruption events in the society (in particular, the adoption of the new anticorruption legislation). We have also conducted a comparative analysis of the assessments of the situation in the context of corruption and the attitude to corruption of people who have and have not had corruption-related experience over the past 12 months. According to the respondents, firsthand experience (69%) and accounts of family members, friends and acquaintances etc. (60%) are the primary source of information on the levels of corruption in the society for majority of people. The mass media remain the most popular source of information for twenty eight percent of the interviewed and are very popular among the businesspeople (41%). Overall, a quite large share of the public is not interested in the topic of corruption at all (26%) and eight percent ignore any information of that sort all together. Only seven percent of the respondents look for such information on their own initiative. In short,

9 personal experience and accounts of family and friends are the major sources of information on corruption for the public; for less than a third of the public and nearly a half of the businesspeople the main source of information on corruption is the mass media. For a third part of the public (34%), the topic of corruption is of no interest at all and only seven percent are interested in this subject matter. To assess the level of public awareness about anticorruption efforts, we have included questions on the most recent important event in this field, i.e. the adoption of the new anticorruption legislation and repeated postponing of its coming into force, into the questionnaire. Of those who are interested in the topic of corruption and independently look for information on this matter, a quite large number of responses (30%) fall into the category I have never heard of the bill till now. The levels of awareness of different categories of population (in particular, average citizens, businesspeople and civil servants) were studied separately. Only seven percent of the businesspeople know about it. Among the civil servants, fifty-one percent know about this fact in general, twenty-nine percent know about it in detail and sixteen percent have never heard of it. For forty-seven percent, firsthand knowledge of the law is the primary ground to develop a personal opinion. Twenty six percent of the businesspeople rely on the assessments of colleagues and friends. On average, only fourteen percent are interested in expert opinions. Majority of the interviewed, both among citizens, businesspeople and civil servants, cannot evaluate the abovementioned bills due to a lack of information. Businesspeople approve of the new legislation the most (23%) compared to sixteen percent of members of the public and thirteen percent of the civil servants. In respect of the postponement of the coming into force of the new legislation, there is a somewhat different number of those who know about it in detail. Thirty one percent of the civil servants compared to six percent of citizens and a slightly higher number of businesspeople (14%) are well aware of the fact that, in June 2009, the Parliament passed a package of laws to curb corruption and, in March 2010, it postponed its coming in to effect until January 1, This said, majority of the respondents among the public, businesspeople and civil servants have never heard of it or know about it in general terms. The level of public awareness about the adoption of the anticorruption law and postponement of its coming into force suggests that citizens are not very familiar with the anticorruption efforts. Even in the group affected by these laws the most (civil servants), twenty percent did not know about their adoption. The legislation was primarily assessed based on external factors and, as a rule, not expert opinions because only fourteen percent are interested in expert opinions. Forty-seven percent of the civil servants develop their opinions on a piece of legislation by studying it firsthand. A lack of reliable information in this field is the biggest problem, because majority of the interviewed were not able to assess these laws due to a lack of information about them. In the absence of information, socio cultural stereotypes in the understanding of corruption become the most important factors of perceived corruption and its growth. They significantly affect opinions of the general public and professional groups on the extent, scale and prevalence of corruption in the Ukrainian society.

10 To a great extent, public perceptions of the extent of corruption in a particular sphere are shaped by the understanding of corruption. Moreover, there is a general stereotype trend to label certain spheres and institutions as corrupt. In other words, for this group of population, the words corruption and education are virtually synonyms. However, as the survey suggests, opinions about the extent of corruption in a specific sphere are shaped not only by the understanding of corruption but also by corruption experience of the respondents. In this context, we refer to two aspects in the perceptions of the corruption extent in a specific group by different social groups. The first group refers to available corruption experience (experience in corruption transactions in a specific field or institution); the second group refers to subjective labeling of a specific field that relies on the general ideas, the media effect and prevailing stereotypes that shape perceptions of corruption of a specific sector. In order to compare the impact of subjective labeling and corruption experience on the perceptions of corruption, we selected sectors that are widely believed to be the most corrupt in terms of frequency of corruption transactions. In other words, corruption experience of the public in contacts with respective institutions representing certain spheres was the main criterion for the selection of sectors for a comparative analysis of corruption prevalence. Perceived corruption in a specific sector depends on the above-mentioned factors, more specifically, awareness, personal experience and stereotypes prevailing in the society. This said, the evaluation of corruption levels in a particular field based on personal experience differs from the assessments of corruption levels based on subjective assessments in the absence of corruption experience. In other words, assessments of corruption in particular sectors of life and public institutions depend on the presence or absence of corruption experience. To conduct the comparative analysis, we selected four public sectors and authorities subject to their perceived corruption levels, specifically, sectors with high corruption levels; sectors with corruption levels above average; sectors with moderate corruption levels; and sectors with low levels of corruption. ( *The research conducted by Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research)