How Political Scientists Study Political Corruption? - Research Paper

Introduction

Political corruption is logically one of the fundamental concepts of political science. It has been in existence throughout the ages and it is a common belief that it thrives in positions of power since power is highly connected with money. However, over the centuries, the vice has evolved into different practices that can barely be characterized as corruption, gradually becoming more complex and deceptively harder to be determined (Michael & Bowser, 2010). The most current suitable definition of corruption is that it is an illegal act that is performed by either a politician or any person to acquire wealth or produce results that under normal circumstance would have been impossible. Several activities within political circles are can be characterized as acts of corruption. For instance, acquisition of tender through dubious deals, illegal trade, and acquisition of wealth such as land and buildings through substandard means. When there is poor law enforcement to counter such activities, it becomes impossible to identify the root causes of the vice and to establish a lasting solution to them. It is very unfortunate that corruption has pushed individuals who are supposed to be representing their constituents by making effective policies that can protect them from poor management of resources are the ones at the forefront in embezzling funds.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Corruption is a complex malpractice that has been studied since time immemorial. Among the people who have tried to understand the concept are political scientists. These individuals have developed different methods of studying corruption, its effects and how it can be eradicated from any system of governance. The two commonly used criteria for evaluating political system by political scientists are the extension by which the system produces the desired output and the means of achieving those outputs. These are long-term methods of analyzing corruption within any governmental institutions and they normally provide lasting solutions if their recommendations are implemented by any system of governance. In general, most of the researches that have been carried out by political scientists focus more on the outputs than the processes. Much focus has been put on the policies that political aspirants promise to implement when elected which in reality never or very few are executed by these leaders after resuming office. Political scientists also focus on how these policies match the demands of the citizens, especially the median voter and the consequences of such processes (Born, Van Eck, & Johannesson, 2017). Based on most of the studies that have been carried out so far, the case of the importance of outputs is an intuitive process to researches and it is possible to claim that the fundamental goal of any political system is to produce desired outcomes that are politically relevant to the people irrespective of whether these outcomes are achieved through illegal means. Most politicians do this to stay relevant to their electorates and since most of them lack the ability to question the processor if at all if there are some who voice their opinions about the process their efforts become futile and the leaders take this advantage to misuse funds. Procedural issues are very paramount in making policies that are aimed at minimizing corruption. As stated by Born, Van Eck, & Johannesson in their study, the process of achieving the desired outcome matters a lot as it reflects on how decisions are made and how policies are implemented (2017). The procedure of achieving the desired outcome really matters since it defines the basic principles of democratic governance.

One of the primary pillars that political scientists use in assessing the process of governance is integrity. It fundamentally underwrites the belief that the procedural quality of governance can be analyzed. Based on the virtue, one can conclude that there is no rational basis for making an assumption that a public information about the quality of governance in any political system is accurate if that system is controlled by anyone who lacks integrity (Huberts, 2014). Even in less extreme cases, the trustworthiness of any leader will be defined by their level of integrity. More often than not, most leaders who lack integrity tend to be corrupt or are always associated with corruption scandals. Trust in leadership is often perceived as an important virtue by electorates on their leaders but one must not be blindfolded by it since such trust can be positively harmful to them when the leaders themselves are not genuinely trustworthy themselves. It can give a misguided perception that can give a leader a room to secretly misuse public funds. In simple terms, integrity is a fundamental factor that dictates how leaders are being perceived by their constituents and how they relate to each other. Hence, the integrity of a leader is not a trivial matter and it has attracted a lot of research on how effectively it can be exercised to achieve the desired leadership output. It is shocking to note that despite its obvious importance, very little work has been done by political scientists on the topic of integrity and how leaders can effectively use it to better their governance. The little on the topic of integrity is so little to an extent that there is currently no definite definition of the term. Despite the little attention that has been given to the subject, political scientists have formulated different ways of studying integrity and political corruption.

Political scientists used different methods to study political corruption. The primary step of this process is to understand how corruption in exercised in politics. Political corruption is a parasitic vice that never dies easily and it often finds a way to survive amidst stringent measures that the government puts in place to curb it. It is very attractive to most people, given that it offers faster means of acquiring a huge amount of wealth that in reality could take one age to obtain. There is a symbiotic relationship between the people who gain from the vice and the elite who control it, hence it is very hard for the government to kill the vice. It takes time and requires proper study by different agencies and recommendations from political scientists. To some people, corruption is normal and they believe that the people holding government positions are entitled to it as long as they deliver their promises.

Corruption normally flourishes in nations that have just faced revolution. The revolutionary period is normally proceeded by anarchy, a system of governance that has no effective mechanisms of controlling corrupt activities. The vice easily takes hold of the government, hindering the true development of a people's government. The people living in a nation that is infested with corruption often take it as a norm and at times the few who might voice their disagreement with the system on how they manage public funds often lack the power to be heard or the voice that can drive the government to take action.

Political integrity is one virtue that must be upheld by anyone running for or seeking to be employed in government positions. Yet, despite its importance, political science has done so little in finding a long-lasting solution to the problem. In most cases where political scientist have looked into the subject of integrity, they have done so without using the proper linguistic formulation of integrity. They have mainly researched on corruption, a study that has always produced results that can barely be connected to integrity, based on its narrow focus against the broad view of public ethics. There are also other measures that have been used by political scientists in finding solutions to corruption. Some of these initiatives are quality of government that mainly focuses on positive attributes and formulation of laws which have also failed in capturing the concept of integrity. The standard code of conduct used within the public life and by politicians in exercising their duties is much more nuanced than the widely used measures and it is much closer to integrity. According to Newell, there is a potential reward in conceptualizing the empirical work of elaborating integrity into an operational concept (2018).

Political scientists study integrity through the conceptualization of integrity as used within the borders of political science and broader political discourse. Perhaps the most common method used by these individuals is an analysis of its inverse, political corruption. Corruption is a very broad concept in political science as well as in many academic disciplines. Its meaning goes beyond legal definitions as a form of bribery and a technique that government officials use to embezzle funds. Corruption in a broader sense is the use of one' official and non-official position to acquire wealth or take improper chances for their own benefits. One of the most commonly used definitions of corruption was coined by Georgieva in 2017 who stated that corruption is the misuse of entrusted power for selfish gains. The definition of the term does not only entail bribery but also improper influence, nepotism, and exchange of goods or services, in which the transfers are contingent on each other. Most of these activities are often characterized by the exchange of money but that does not warrant them to be corrupt deals. It is the inverse of integrity in the sense that a corrupt politician may lack integrity while a non-corrupt politician may not have a high degree of integrity. There is no direct connection between integrity and corruption since one can still be having lower integrity and at the same time being non-corrupt. The antithesis that exists between corruption and integrity is an integral knowledge that indicates the limitations upon integrity can be understood in the context of corruption. Using this concept, political scientists assert that corruption by itself cannot justify those who govern act by good faith. These findings have also been backed by other methods.

The findings suggested by game theoretic simulations are similar to consideration of corruption as an antithesis as discussed above. As noted by Franke in 2013, game theoretical simulations show that at times, non-corrupt politicians have the incentive to support dysfunctional regulations of corruption and they might even go further to passively play a role in it. This situation might mean that the leader may not corrupt but they lack integrity. Hence, corruption on its own cannot do the theoretical work that is required conceptually when using it as an inverse substitute of integrity. A leader's trustworthiness cannot be defined by them being uncorrupt but it indicates that they are at least passively malevolent. This insight is very important to political scientists who want to draw the line between governance that is controlled by integrity and a leadership that is free of corruption and the observation that one should make to determine whether any political system is effective. Political scientists also use a wide range of wealth indicators of different countries to carry out a comparative research. From the study, they are can easily determine whether a political system is corrupt or whether its leaders lack integrity which might predispose them to acts of corruption. Some of the wealth indicators are Bribe Payers Index (BPI), the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Surveys (BEEPS) and the Global Corruption Barometer (Tones, Tilford, & Robinson, 1990). The validity of these measures has been questioned by many researchers and it is common knowledge that they pose some errors even if the conceptual problems are sidelined. The study of co...