لنستخرج كنوزا من المعرفة و الإبداع و العلم و الأفكار
Second, variables such as ‘proximity’, ‘efficacy’, ‘political trust’ and partisanship
seem to have a profound effect on cognition and evaluation in matters of corruption.
The analyses of de Sousa and Newell suggest that, all other things being equal, the
probity of those who are socially distant is likely to be viewed with greater scepticism
and judged more harshly when revealed to fall short than is the probity of those whose
greater proximity makes them more familiar. The analyses also point to the hypothesis
that those confident of the influence they can wield in their interaction with the state are
less cynical in their attitudes to probity, both their own and that of officials, than those
lacking this confidence. Mazzoleni’s analysis suggests that citizens’ evaluations of
political transgressions will be significantly influenced by their levels of political trust
and by their partisanship – while confirming the results of other investigations that the
way in which these variables are linked to evaluations will likely be significantly
influenced by the specifics of the political and institutional context.
Third, the process whereby given acts come to be labelled as ‘corrupt’ and officials’
behaviour comes to be perceived as wanting, is a process of social construction in
which actors’ power to define situations – situations that, in the case of corruption,
are usually ones of which ordinary citizens have little direct experience – differs
markedly, as the analysis by Verwee and Vande Walle makes clear. Therefore,
citizens’ perceptions and evaluations cannot be properly understood without an
understanding of the macro socio-political context; that is, without an awareness of
what powerful social and political groups are doing to make their own definitions
stick, this as part of their effort to advance their political and economic interests.
Fourth, it may well be that at least as much insight into the nature and extent of
public concerns in a society can be had from investigations that employ methods and
data-gathering techniques that are less ‘direct’ than the social survey. These might
include the analysis of anti-corruption strategies and the handling of corruption
cases. After all, as de Graaf et al. (this issue, 2008, p. 85) point out, it has to be
acknowledged that in the end, ‘asking about ‘‘official’’ internal investigations, is also
asking about perceptions’. Alternatively, they might include the content analysis of
newspaper articles and other media products, bearing in mind that ‘the media are the
chief sources of individuals’ knowledge, and therefore of their perceptions and
opinions, of issues arising outside the environment of their face-to-face interactions
with others’ (Cepernich, this issue 2008, p. 95).
All of this makes for a very complex set of issues, difficult conceptually to
disentangle. If this presents enormous challenges for the researcher seeking to
explore public appraisals of official conduct, then, paradoxically perhaps, awareness
of the difficulties makes it more likely that we will see progress towards the ultimate
objective of research in this area: To establish how and why the citizens of different
societies perceive and evaluate official conduct the way they do, and with precisely
what consequences.
Notes
1 The centrality of moral codes to what counts as corruption remains even in the case of those
definitions of the term that appear to render it independent of such codes: For example, principal-agent
6 J. L. Newell
definitions – of the most widely used definitions seemingly the most independent of public attitudes – are
independent only in appearance, for they make the difference between corrupt and non-corrupt actions
turn on the principal’s – socially informed – decisions about the interests and preferences the agent is to
be required to advance.
2 Entitled ‘Corruption and Democracy in Europe: Public Opinion and Social Representations’, the
workshop was made possible by generous financial support from the Manchester Jean Monnet Centre of
Excellence, based at the University of Manchester, and from the European Studies Research Institute
based at the University of Salford. The assistance of the Centre and Institute are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Cepernich, C. (2008) Landscapes of Immorality: Scandals in the Italian Press (1998 – 2006), Perspectives on
European Politics and Society, 9(1), pp. 95 – 109.
De Graaf, G., Huberts, L. W. J. C., & Nelen, J. M. (2008) Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?
Perceptions of the Scale and Nature of Corruption in The Netherlands, Perspectives on European
Politics and Society, 9(1), pp. 84 – 94.
Della Porta, D., & Vannucci, A. (1999) Corrupt Exchanges: Actors, Resources, and Mechanisms of Political
Corruption (New York: De Gruyter).
Doig, A. (2003) Political corruption in the United Kingdom, in:M. J. Bull & J. L. Newell (Eds) Corruption
in Contemporary Politics, pp. 178 – 190 (London: Palgrave).
Newell, J. L., & Bull, M. J. (2003) Introduction, in: M. J. Bull & J. L. Newell (Eds) Corruption in
Contemporary Politics, pp. 1 – 6 (London: Palgrave).
Rosenberg, A. (1988) Philosophy of Social Science (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Thompson, J. B. (2000) Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age (Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press).
Varese, F. (2000) Pervasive corruption, in: A. Ledeneva & M. Kurkchiyan (Eds) Economic Crime in
Russia, pp. 99 – 111 (London: Kluwer Law International). Available at http://www.colbud.hu/honestytrust/
varese/pub01.PDF
Winch, P. (1958) The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy (London: Routledge).
