CORRUPTION AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN RUSSIA AND GERMANY

by Alexey Nechaev, Department of International Relations, Samara State University, Russia [email protected]

and Anna Proskurina Department of International Relations, Samara State University, Russia [email protected]

The research results presented in this paper were acquired as part of the project “Corruption in municipalities, organizations and companies: Samara - Stuttgart” which took place from June 2009 to June 2012. The project was partly supported by Robert Bosch Foundation in 2011 and 2012. The project team included German partners: University of Stuttgart, University of Public Administration Ludwigsburg, Auditing Office of the City of Stuttgart, Samara Regional Duma and Samara State University on the Russian side. A significant amount of work on collecting and analysis of material was done within the project. In particular anticorruption legislation of Baden-Württemberg and German federal laws were collected and translated into Russian. About 100 interviews (approximately 150 hours) with representatives of target groups were conducted in Stuttgart and Samara and analysed. Open information about corruption cases was collected and systematized. Finally, initial analysis of the collected data was done. The goal of this work was to find out the major traits and distinguishing criteria of the types of corruption as the basic elements for building the typology of corruption and corresponding gnosiologic models of these types. 1

1. Research methodology Corruption is hidden from independent observer, and the level of clearance of corruption crimes is comparatively low, so the absolute majority of corruption research methodologies focuses on gathering and analysis of data about the effect of this phenomenon (the amount of corruption transactions) based on indirect sources like expert evaluations (corruption perception index of Transparency International), analysis of public discourse (Global Integrity Index), analysis of legislation. In general such approach has a definite effect, for example these methodologies are used in the countries investment ratings or to form membership criteria in some international organizations, etc. These methodologies yield little with respect to combating corruption, they indicate weak points in the functioning of social norms, for example, problems in implementation of legislation. Methodology of the present research is based on the following principles: -

-

Social phenomena are viewed as part of social reality and not just as forms of independent human activity. Social phenomena are understood neither in determinist, nor in an irrational way, but within multiple conditional connection with each other, where each social phenomenon is relatively independent in its existence and is not only formed by the culture of the given society, but also itself forms its own culture and can determine some social phenomena or determinant factors. Any independent phenomenon forms its own special social environment. By the very fact of its existence, its system of interdependencies it also forms both a special type of human behaviour, and a complex of artifacts, i.e. a social culture. Under the conditions of open society social phenomena may gain the multiplication effect.

The general method of research used in the project is the modelling of social phenomena and processes. The method involves the development of the system of elements similar to the object of research and reproducing the structural, functional, cause-effect and genetic connections between the elements of the phenomenon. Modelling is necessary for the management of any social phenomenon. The model makes it possible to influence not only the symptoms of the phenomenon. By analogy with a disease symptomatic treatment is in most cases destructive to the whole body, in this case for the whole society, and provokes further development of the illness. To combat corruption efficiently one has to understand the nature and causes of this illness. Modelling begins with collecting and analysis of data. The following types of data were chosen for our study: -

Formal rules and norms of conduct described in anticorruption legislations;

-

Notions of corruption by the representatives of key social groups,

-

Data from official sources about real manifestations of corruption in Russia and in Germany for conclusions about structural and causal qualities of the phenomenon. 2

These types of data were chosen based the following assumptions: 1. Formal norms and rules embody and describe the expected mechanism of control and punishment for corruption crimes, 2. Corruption action is taken in spite of formal norms and rules, wheras any social action of an individual should agree with his/her picture of social reality, 3. Manifestations of corruption in reality may indicate the possible functional and causeeffect connections between the different elements of this phenomenon. The second basic research method in the project was comparative analysis, which provides for determining the role and functions of some elements of the social system on the basis of similarity of the other elements of the systems. The basis for comparison of corruption as a social phenomenon in Russian and in Germany was (in the initial point of research) the idea of corruption as a criminal action, the presence of control and punishment mechanisms for corruption crimes, similar administrative systems in these countries, civil law system in both countries. Functional qualities of formal norms and rules were compared to find out possible causes of corruption. The correspondence of content and scope of the functions of prevention, control, sanctions and regulation of the legal norms themselves in Russian and German federal law as well as regional laws in Samara and Baden-Württemberg was determined. In addition to functional comparative analysis legislation was studied as part of ideological discourse that forms public consciousness of public officials. The study of notions of corruption and its features and basic connections of this phenomenon with other phenomena of material world and mentality was done in the form of semi-structured interviews. This type of qualitative analysis makes it possible to approach the understanding of meanings that people use in their judgements about corruption and in their actions in the possible situations of corruption. Semi-structured interviews help the researcher avoid limitations in the answers of the respondents and thus the predetermined content of the database. The focus on the opinions of the people, their understanding and evaluation of the existing reality of corruption relations seemed most fruitful to us, and this approach proved so completely. Interviews with the representatives of key social groups having to do with the corruption process, including public officials, managers of municipal companies, municipal companies, business people. Preliminary results of these interviews were verified in the interviews with other groups, representatives of culture and religion as groups that work with the public opinion. The main information blocks of the interview included the following: -

sources of judgement about the phenomenon,

-

scope of the notion of corruption, its difference from unethical behaviour, and from other types of criminal action; 3

-

moral judgements about this phenomenon,

-

connection between personality traits, life circumstances and the possible corruption actions and corruption relations, or unethical actions and relations,

-

connection between economic situation and the possible corruption actions and corruption relations,

-

organisational context of the phenomenon,

-

formal and informal mechanisms of corruption prevention in the organisation.

The correlation between subjective notions and observable actions and corruption phenomena was established on the basis of contrasting the results of analysis of the interviews and the data about real corruption cases, which were collected from press, as well as the cases described by the respondents. This data was studied using situational analysis method. The model of corruption was built on the basis of the analytic data received and included answers to the following questions: What are the main elements of the phenomenon? Who or what is the subject of the corruption action? What are the interests and motivation of the subjects? What are the functions of each of the distinguished subjects of the corruption action? What provides for multiplication of the phenomenon and in what way?

2. On the Definition of corruption Among the various social phenomena corruption is absolutely special, because we cannot localize it either in the cognitive paradigm, or in the structure of scientific knowledge, or in the structure of human activity. As soon as we begin to study corruption, we immediately come across some special traits of this phenomenon, as well as of the process of its cognition. Why do we study corruption, first of all? For example, we study some phenomena, because they have extreme practical significance: we have to know the laws of physics and mathematics to build mechanisms. Some phenomena are studied for their relevance for modern society, they have appeared nowadays and represent both threats and opportunities of social development (e.g. Arabian Spring, World Crisis). Some phenomena are studied by tradition, out of habit, because they have a complex and universal character and every epoch discovers something new in them. These phenomena have long history and people study something in them all the time (e.g. birth and decline of empires, antique culture). Some phenomena are studied, because they are important for our everyday life, they influence our behaviour and our attitude to other people. Corruption is quite a special phenomenon. We study it for none of the above reasons and, strange as it may seem, for all these reasons altogether. Does corruption have significance for everyday life of people? It certainly does. Everyone is daily at risk of appearing in the situation of corruption and being unable to resolve it. This is just because, 4

for example, the rules of behaviour in this definite situation are unknown to a wide variety of people, the rules are hidden, or because one doesn’t have enough resources to resolve this corruptive situation. Does corruption present a threat to modern society? It surely does. For example, corruption distorts the very principle of competition of modern economy by cancelling all legal norms and the norms of human morality, and thus turning the social order into wild ultimate fighting. Corruption is no doubt a traditional object of research in social sciences. Obviously the history of its study originates from the times of the Roman Empire, when an official came a poor man to a rich city and left a rich man the poor city. Thousands of years have passed, but we have the same situation in Samara, as Moscow appointed a new governor to the region with the fifth largest economy in the country. In a few years of the work of this governor the industrial potential of the region decreased by several times, at that Samara is still the air and space capital of Russia, and builds airplanes and automobiles. Is the study of corruption relevant? Yes. Every time we define this phenomenon and find ways to combat it, corruption is reborn in new forms, in new place where we don’t expect it. The second special trait of corruption is that it cannot be referred to any single sphere of human activity or cognition: -

Is corruption a political phenomenon, i.e. a special instrument of power struggle and a specific form of manifestation of power in society? Yes. The formula of commercial success is well known for a long time: first buy a law and then build your business on its basis. The profitability of any business depends not only on the size of the capital invested in the business, but also on the number of public officials the business “owns” in power. But it is not purely political phenomenon, because corrupt activity is possible only on condition of the fundamental legal relations and the essence of economic processes being deformed.

-

Is corruption an economic phenomenon? Yes, certainly. The most corruption scandals that become public are in the economic sphere. The case of Lockheed, Tessler, Halliburton, Jefferson are just the brightest examples. For example, James C. Scott explicitly connected corruption with the limits to the market, i.e. the border when market rules are not expected to work, because it infringes the principles of social justice.1 At the same time can we say that it is a purely economic phenomenon? No, we cannot. If it were so, it would be possible to calculate corruption in the system of possible risks, insure against it and account it in the structure of overheads, as it had been the case in Germany before 1998. But it turned out that “legal” corruption merges very quickly with illegal, criminal activity and becomes inseparable from it.

-

Can we refer corruption to legal phenomena as a criminal action? Yes. In legal practice corruption is described in terms of offences, e.g. bribery, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds. Thus, the UK Bribery Act distinguishes offences of bribing another person and offences of being bribed, which makes it possible to grasp the phenomenon in legal practice. In many cases corrupt activity is hard to trace

1

Scott, James C. Comparative Political Corruption Prentice-Hall, 1972

5

as an illegal action, so it is also for practical reasons that Transparency International (TI) has chosen a working definition that grasps both illegal and legally permissible act in the term: «Corruption is operationally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. TI further differentiates between "according to rule" corruption and "against the rule" corruption.»2 Moreover, many cases of corruption are not illegal, strangely they are not against any law. For example, over the last decade a very curious phenomenon, millionaire housewives, has appeared in Russia. The origin of their wealth is certainly a Pulcinella's secret. These women have one thing in common, their husbands or close relatives are high-ranking state officials, who in such a simple way bypass the law on government service and get their share of excess profit. Corruption is possible as a legal act, but nevertheless it remains corruption.

Difficulties in localizing corruption in any sphere of human activity effect in the view of corruption as an array of different phenomena. This heterogeneous character of corruption in reflected in the multitude of typologies proposed by researchers and practicing experts. For example, Olivier de Sardan uses the term of ‘corruption complex’ to include practices beyond corruption in the strict sense of the word, i.e. nepotism, abuse of power, embezzlement and various forms of misappropriation, influence peddling, prevarication, insider trading and abuse of the public purse.3 A similar thing is imprinted in public consciousness. Our respondents often identified corruption with bribery. For example: Es ist meine ehrliche Überzeugung […]das Thema Korruption oder Bestechung ist marginal, aber es ist da. (02) Bestochen werden kann, oder Korruption kann bei uns hauptsächlich kommen bei denjenigen die große Geldbeträge beim Ausgeben veranlassen. (03) What is corruption? It is bribery. In other cases corruption was defined as an array of crimes. For example: Korruption ist für mich: Vermögensdelikte, Vorteilsannahme, Urkundenfälschung, wettbewerbswidrige Absprache, Bestechlichkeit, Subventionsbetrug und auch Untreue. (36) Missbrauch einer Vertrauensstellung um einen materiellen oder immateriellen Vorteil auch zu Gunsten Dritter zu erlangen auf dem kein rechtlich begründeter Anspruch besteht. Und dann haben wir hier noch Verletzung eines allgemeinen Interesses zu Gunsten eines spezifischen Vorteils, Missbrauch einer anvertrauten Macht zum mittelbaren Vorteil, zur politischen Definition. Und dann eine moralische Verdorbenheit erfasst auch Phänomene wie Ämterpatronage, Nepothismus, Klientelismus, politische Einflussnahme und Lobbyismus. (05)

2

Transparency International FAQ URL http://archive.transparency.org/news_room/faq/corruption_faq de Sardan, Olivier A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa? In The Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol. 37, № 1, (Mar. 1999), p. 27 3

6

This idea is connected with the definition of corruption in legal practice, where corruption is classified into definite crimes, including abuse of public office, giving and taking a bribe, commercial graft, breach of confidence, unlawful use of official position by an individual. Thus, the Russian criminal code contains from 8 to 50 types of corruption crimes according to different researchers. 4 This typological approach to defining corruption is probably quite justified for the use in legal practice, as the list of indications and forms of criminal actions is necessary for the courts to define the amount of damage done and the degree of fault of the subjects of the crime. Such mosaic notion of a phenomenon is unacceptable for researcher, as it makes it impossible to determine essential internal connections and functions of the phenomenon. That is why the main question in defining corruption is the very essence of corruption. So, different researchers define corruption as a social phenomenon, as a type of relations, as a type of behavior, as a form of transaction, as a form of resource distribution, etc. Here, just like in the case of variety of spheres of action of corruption, all these points of view are true, but they don’t reach the essence of the phenomenon. It is obvious that the essence of phenomenon determines its inner structure as, for example, the system of interrelated actions (bahaviour) or types of interdependencies (relations), types of resources, subjects, objects and principles of their distribution, etc. Each of the above possible essences of corruption requires a special approach in its study. The same variety of views is demonstrated about the essential traits of corruption: the abuse of public power for private benefit (World Bank, Transparency International, Russian Federal Law against corruption), as well as the opposite the use of wealth to buy power (Huntington). behaviour that deviates from the formal rules of conduct governing the actions of someone in a position of public authority because of private-regarding motives such as wealth, power, or status (J. Nye, Khan, Council of Europe). This definition is close to the notion of conflict of interest, in fact. (INDEM).

Unjust distribution of resources in favour of the privileged members of society

Our analysis shows that corruption has four essential indicators. First of all, it is a purposeful and conscious action of the subject, who makes the corresponding decision and understands the essence of the action taken. Corruption must be singled out from an action by mistake, resulting in advantages to this or that social subject. Secondly, corruption is always an action against society that does harm to social interests, any other action. Thirdly, corruption is based on the use of one’s special position in the society. Fourth, the subject of corruption action transfers public resources in favour of some definite social subject, and eventually to ones’ own benefit. We believe that the four above indictors are essential for an action to be called a case of corruption.

4

Егорова Н.А К концепции уголовного законодательства России о противодействии коррупции // Российская юстиция. 2007. № 8. С. 11-12.

7

What happens in fact in the corruption process? A subject transfers some product to another subject as an onerous. In essence this type of transaction is called trade. However the special feature of this trade transaction is not the quality of the deal, not the availability or absence of the product on the market, not the level of supply and demand, but that the key role in this transaction is played by the social status of its subjects. One can note that the position of the seller as well as that of the buyer is always significant in trade. The one who finds a favourable market niche can always dictate the prices. For example, it is well known that if one wants to sell something urgently, one has to offer a low price. And on the contrary, if one wants to buy something urgently, one has to pay more, as a rule. However it doesn’t occur to anyone to consider the merchant selling early strawberries or a customer on the evening market corrupt people. Corruption transaction is about a very specific position of the seller, it is about his position as a public official or public figure. This special position of the seller is the condition of the transaction and it is also partly the object of the transaction. As a result of corruption transaction the transfer of public resources to private property of the seller and the buyer. It can happen in different ways, for example, the public official may turn a blind eye to unpaid fines or taxes and gets part of the money due to the state. An official may help to make a company bankrupt in a competent way and then gets part of the company in his/her ownership. Or an “independent public expert” sells for a share his/her “special opinion”. The common essence of all these cases is that public resources lose their status and their function as a public good and become privately owned. We define corruption as an intentional trade in one’s official or social status aimed at the transfer of public funds in one’s personal disposal. We’d like to emphasise that the criterion of legality is consciously excluded from this definition, because corruption act is corruption, no matter whether or not is called corruption by any law.

3. Corruption as a Social Institution After defining the indicators of corruption let’s come back to the essential differences in the existence of corruption in the two countries in question. We studied legislation first and our analysis revealed differences in the statement of purpose between Russian and German anticorruption legislation. It provided basis of the search of differences in public consciousness. After that we studied a shear of public opinion and found that corruption exists as different notions in Russia and Germany accordingly. In Germany it is a hidden event, it is done in secret and understood by everyone as a secret. In Russia it is a status thing. Thus the former mayor of Moscow in his official interviews more than once announced that officials should be bribed to overcome irrational obstacles. If city mayor openly speaks about it, then bribe takers naturally take it for granted.

8

In Germany corruption crime is always occasional and always unexpected, abnormal. It is for sure a crime of an individual against the society, in Russia it is frequently a necessity, that is accepted as a regular occurrence or norm, more than that these norms are well known (one knows where, when and how to pay). In Germany the artifacts and stereotypes connected with corruption are present to a lesser degree than in Russia. As a result we found out that in Russia corruption exists as a social institution, it is connected with all elements of social structure and exists as a system. Corruption is not simply a social phenomenon, and even if a very special one, it doesn’t fit into the existence and functioning of separate social phenomena. Certainly having the outward form of a social phenomenon, it is at the same time something more. Corruption is also a definite social institution with its own special type of social culture. This social institution takes part in the various types of human activity, depending on the conditions at hand and turns to the observer with only one of its sides. We understand social institution in this case as a separate lasting type or sphere of human activity performed with a definite aim according to fixed formal or informal rules and norms, and maintained by corresponding mechanisms of control over the execution of these norms and rules. Let’s consider corruption as a social institution. First of all, corruption is a special, very sustainable, constantly self-replicating type of human activity. In a sense it can be compared to such social institute as trade. In case of corruption buying and selling take place as well, but the object of the transaction is singular. No articles of consumption or services are purchased in this case. Indirectly this transaction can lead to income, just like some money, but the direct object of corruption transaction is an “exceptional attitude”, “favour”, “attention” of a public official to the visitor or applicant. It is a way to personify relations, whereby some visitor or bidder or a patient of a hospital is suddenly distinguished from among the mass of others and the social function of the official initially impersonal by nature starts functioning not for A visitor, but specifically with reference to this person, i.e. in a personified way. Thus the object of this trade transaction is personal attitude. In the same way that people buy food and commodities, they can buy special treatment and favour. Let’s remark in the margins that as a result of this sales transaction also a negative treatment is possible. If, for example, the official is incorruptible, the visitor can be booted out of the house, or in a law-governed state legal operations will follow, for example, a company will be put on a black list. Besides that, corruption transaction has its own very special means of payment systems conventionally accepted and approved of. These systems depend as a rule on the system of legal limitations and the system of punishment in the given society. In this respect a corruption transaction is rather similar to non-monetary exchange, when one object is exchanged for another, although as we said the object of transaction is singular, it is an ideal object. The payment for this object can be food, luxury articles, commodities, services, animals. For example, in 19th cent Russia very popular bribes were greyhound puppies, now a popular bribe is Arabian stallions. Nowadays it is a common practice among rich people in Russia to own horses and demonstrate them at races. It is prestigious, and the richest people own and maintain stables. 9

Secondly, in corruption process certainly there are strict norms and rules, which in many respects depend on traditions, mentality, cultural norms and well as on the anticorruption policy of the state and legal limitations. First of all, these rules determine a conventional amount of payment in every case. These rules are true both for those who give bribes and for those who receive them. In every country, where corruption is widely spread there is a proverb similar to the Russian “Every rank should take bribes according to the rank” (“Каждый чин должен брать по чину”). This is not just a proverb and a play of words, it is a very strict rule. One of our interviewees gave such an example. Once he was stopped by road police for traffic violation and offered “to pay on the spot” as it often happens. It means that instead of spending time on official recording of the violation, having the bill issued the bill, visiting the bank to pay the bill, etc., the driver pays money to the road police officer personally, because the violation was proven. The violation that the interviewee committed meant a 1 000 rouble fine, so the driver held out 1 000 roubles to the officer. He got the answer: “This is incorrect. Why are you offending me? We are not the government, not some robbers. Only half of it will do.” The study of INDEM foundation demonstrated that only 12% of people have no idea of the amount of bribe expected in this or that situation.5 Methods of calculating the amount of bribes in different regions have become popular in Russia. The amounts depend on the income of the population in the region, and the sphere of human activity. These calculations are quite easily done and the rules mustn’t be violated. (see, for example, these web-sites 6). Thus, for example, in the epoch of primitive accumulation of capital by the young Russian democracy, when the government pursued the policy “Enrich yourself, those who can!”, one of Russian prime ministers had an almost official nick name in mass media “Misha the 2 per cent”, i.e. 2 per cent of a deal was the price of his “special attention”. There are also norms for the types of payment transaction. Not always at all should the bribes be paid secretly, very often the payment should be made openly and officially. This is the reason for the popular joke to appear in Russia: “Here is 5000 roubles in the envelope and I won’t tell anyone about it. – Pay 10 000 and tell everyone about it.” It means that illegality of the transaction is not significant, whereas the amount of the bribe is significant, as it confirms the social status of the bribetaker. The bribe giver can also take pride in the success of the transaction, thus K.Sedlenieks confirms that a story of successful bribe giving is quite relevant to boast of among friends in transition Latvia.7 The third institutional indication of corruption is the presence of control mechanisms of this activity. They are manifested in the way legal control mechanisms work, to what degree these legal control mechanisms are selective of the participants of corruptive relations. For 5

Состояние бытовой коррупции в Российской Федерации (на основании результатов социологического исследования, проведенного во втором полу годии 2010 г.) – Общероссийский общественный фонд «Общественное мнение», Министерство экономического развития Россйской федерации. М. – 2011, С. 13 6 http://www.vashamashina.ru/bill.php http://statistic.su/blog/corruption/2011-06-15-318 http://roskomvzyatka.com/ 7 Седлениекс, Клавс Параллель между Латвией и Азанде: коорупция как колдовство в латвийском обществе переходного периода.// Борьба с ветряными мельницами? Социально- антропологический подход к исследованию коррупции. /Сост. Отв. редактор. И.Б.Олимпиева, О.В.Панченков. – СПб.: Олитейя, 2007. С. 202

10

example, according to the report of anticorruption activities in Samara region in 2010 417 crimes of against state power and the interests of the civil service were uncovered in Samara region, out of these only 2 people were deprived of the rights to take positions in state service. In spite of corruption in Russia is a widely spread economic crime, the number of corruption connected cases however is on average only 1.5 % of all crimes committed. That is there is a system of liabilities for a corrupt deal, and the system of control over the execution of the deal, and there is certainly a system of punishment. This punishment can be as illegal as the deal, but punishment can also be executed using legal instruments according to the principle “My friends get everything; my enemies get the law”. If it is about insignificant deals and private interests, the principal for of control is reputational stability of the seller. If the corruption transactions are connected with redistribution of interests among social groups, then there is more variety about the control mechanisms, that can be targeted by the order of one or another social group. The forth, a vivid indication of the existence of the institutionalized corruption is a huge layer of cultural phenomena connected with this social institution. One indication of that is the presence of a number of idioms and compound words describing corruption and its expressions, for example, “Не подмажешь не поедешь” (Russian), Wer gut schmiert, der gut fährt (German), palm-oil, pots-de-vin, kickbacks (English). This culture has developed its own symbols, rites and ceremonies, for example, the transfer of envelopes. Some respondents claim that participants of corruption transaction have their own system of signs, codes and hints, their own special language, forms of expressing consent or rejection, etc. All this speaks for the fact that corrupt activity can satisfy the given understanding of social institution. Thus corruption represents a type of social institution with its own culture and manifesting the essential indications of the social institution, including aims, norms and rules, mechanisms of control and. Certainly, we should study it in history, study it as an economic, political and as legal phenomenon. But first of all corruption is a separate social institution, it is a special cultural phenomenon. Its existence is the sign, the product of work of some social mechanisms. This is the phenomenon of social, not individual culture. This understanding of corruption as a social institute manifestly leads corruption beyond the scope of criminal actions. A social institution in itself cannot be a crime, it has a definite social sense and fulfils definite social functions. A lot of corrupt activities are illegal, are a crime. A lot of activities are legal and from the formal point of view are not a crime. Does it mean that they cease to be corruption? No, because they are realized as corrupt behaviour, according to corruption rules and within the corresponding culture. This ineradicable character of corruption suggests the researchers to explain this phenomenon from the eternal human nature. Nowadays popular are the concepts, which represent human nature as originally evil, the main quality of a human being his readiness to misappropriate only to some degree taking into account the circumstances. In essence these conceptions cancel out the social nature of human being. They bring us back to the vulgar mechanistic understanding of human being as a random set of animal instincts. In this case the society itself appears as a non-obligatory by-product of egoistic nature of a human being. Individualism certainly has a significance and meaning in the free human activity, but that is exactly of a human being, i.e. of a social being, not an animal. Animals have no individuality. Of course, any animal has its distinguishing features; any 11

animal differs from another, in the same way as any leaf in a tree, a pebble or a snow flake differs from others of its kind, but not more than that. Individuality, i.e. the need to create and realize one’s own world, is inherent to human being only, human being possessing reason and realizing himself in work, i.e. exclusively and mainly social human being, i.e. having main social characteristics. From the fact that we don’t understand the social reality well enough, and that it surprises us, so that the world around us seems insane, it doesn’t follow that the reason of this insanity is irrational phenomena or miraculous or even vicious human nature. It only follows from that that we should look for new methods and new ways of understanding the changing society. What social mechanisms, social processes generate corruptive relations continuously over hundreds of years? Many social institutes have disappeared ( e.g., there is no guild structure in cities, there is no official institution of slavery, no corvée, etc.), but corruption as a social institution continues its existence. It means that social mechanisms, which form the basis of this phenomenon, exist to this day.

4. Typology of Corruption As soon as we come to consider corruption from the point of view of culture, we see this phenomenon quite differently. The dominating element of any culture is the system of values. Society forms it, society defends it. It means that initially in the process of analysis of the phenomenon first there should come the NOT the question “For what reason”, but the question “What for”, what is the aim of this? In the course of the project we conducted about 100 interviews with the representatives of different social groups in Russia and in Germany. With all the diversity of social spheres and types of activity represented, both German and Russian respondents have demonstrated a lot in common in their perception of the essential sides of this social phenomenon and in the evaluation of its functioning. People, maybe with the exception of hardened offenders don’t commit crimes by habit, it is not an everyday phenomenon like cleaning teeth or taking meals. So the question comes: “for what sake is the corruption crime committed?” Any official should work in the interests of society, it’s his social function. But any social relation is realized only in the activity of definite people. That is in realizing the social function of serving the society the official also acts in the interests of definite people. These are two sides of one and the same process. However demographic structure is very heterogeneous. Social relations are realized by different social groups and these groups have different weight and significance for every official. What is a University Alumni Association? This group says to its members: “Whatever social status you have, you are special, because you are one of us”. And what about national minorities? If we are of the same blood? Can an African refuse a relative? I believe, he/she can’t do it in principle. Motivation “for oneself” in administrative decisions is of secondary importance, the priority is “for others” even if it can cause some administrative problems. And what if we are one family? For example, Mikhail Gorbachev’s mother lived in a small village 12

separated from the rest of the world, but when Gorbachev became the general secretary of the communist party, a wide highway was built on the way to the village. Is this corruption? Possibly. Or is this the right state administration? Also possible. If this is corruption, than it is a very specific case, which is justified in the situation of the highest social atomism and extreme social diversity. What is Putin mostly reproached for? For putting his people on all key positions. It means that they will work for the interests of the group that put them on this position. However, we believe that officials most frequently work in the interests of their social groups. The actual results of the work of public officials are not connected directly with their professional activities any more. Results of a lot of social projects are far from those planned, and transaction costs go beyond any positive effects of the social production, whereas a tangible good for a tangible group is always both relevant and very important. That is why an official, as a rule, in any decision prefers the interest of his/her social group to the interests of all other groups. Can the actions of an official in favour of his/her social group be considered corruption? Initially I’d rather leave the question unanswered, for, as I have noted above, an action for the benefit of society and an action for the benefit of a definite group of people are two sides of the same action, and in principle an absolutely correct governmental socially significant decision can favour the social group to which the official belongs. Secondly, if these two sides contradict each other and the decision infringes social interests, then there doesn’t seem to be any personal motive, consequently the essential indication of corruption disappears. In this case the social and antisocial behaviour of a human being don’t come into conflict. Here there is a clash of interests of different social groups – one morality against the other, some norms and rules against the others. This choice becomes similar to well-known psychological games. You see an old woman and a child drowning, who will you save first? If one really occurs in such a situation, and it is one’s own child drowning – the answer will be quite definite. A person saves his/her own. It is only Bruce Willis saves the world on a daily basis in Die Hard. But even he saves the world, because his own interests are at stake. When two different moralities clash, when personified interests collide with depersonalized, what is the criterion for the choice of one of them or relevance of some rule or another? Imagine two donation boxes: one has the sign “For Good Cause” and the other “For Sick John Aged 5”. Which box would a person rather choose to put a donation in? That is a public official knowingly taking an antisocial decision can do it not because he/she is such a bad person, a money-grubber and a swindler, but because he is good – a good friend, a good class-mate and a good family man. It means that we can put a different typology with the subject organizing the corruption transaction as the criterion at the basis of understanding corruption. The basic classification of corruption may be the division of corruption into individual and social. This distinction is essential. It follows from this that all other existing typologies of corruption and any of the numerous distinguished types of corrupt activity or corrupt behaviour originally contain two principally different types of corruption. For example, the so called everyday-life corruption (corruption relations that a person has to establish in his everyday contacts with public officials), as well as economic and political corruption can be and are necessarily either individual or social. Individual corruption is always a deviation of norm, breaking the norm, i.e. 13

is by definition a criminal antisocial act, which is by definition condemned in any society and in any social group, and consequently the punishment for this act is unavoidable, that is why the number cases of individual corruption is comparatively low. The main content of the institution of corruption is systemic corruption or social corruption. Social corruption unlike the individual one is a definite norm in a sense. Consequently, it has a social support in the social opinion and has a certain meaning. It’s striking obvious that corruption differs in principle in different societies. In some societies its role is insignificant. And in some societies it plays a very noticeable role. As W. Heffernan and J. Kleinig justly point out “[b]oth historically and cross-culturally instantiations of corruption have been contested, not only with respect to their identity but also in certain instances with respect to their desirability”8. The prevalence of corruption in all spheres of society is called systemic corruption. Russia has joined all international conventions to fight corruption. It has very similar legislation compared to that of Germany, but Russia is rated 143rd and Germany 14th on Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. What does that mean? That people in Russia have different nature (are of three heads)? Or is it a kind of miracle? The answers to these questions become clear, just if we look at corruption from the point of view of social culture. When we study corruption as an economic phenomenon, we study the economic spheres of its realization (finance, building and construction, public procurement, etc.). If we study the typology of corruption as a criminal activity, we have to look at the types of crimes. We can compare different typologies of corruption, the special features of its different types. However, doing that we can never answer the question why 9 people were frightened off by the unavoidability of punishment, and 1 was either too silly, or too smart. Portraits of the fraudster that are constructed, explanations of deviant behaviour are looked for, models of criminal game are built (see for example, Donald Cressey9, Gordon Leek10, John Minkes and Leonard Minkes11). Unfortunately, it doesn’t give us any basis to prevent or combat corruption, because the subjects of corruption behaviour make the choice irrespectively of their mental traits, this choice is made on the level of the social culture of a human being, on the level of the person’s reflection of the requirements of his/her social necessity. Before the start of the activity the person determines: either one has obligations to one’s society to which one owes one’s existence; or to one’s social group, which is one’s primary group in all social processes (or these can be several social groups depending on the sphere of activity); or the society is unfair to one and one doesn’t owe anything to anyone, and then one acts only in one’s own individual and as a rule egoistic interests, or tries to eliminate this unfairness in one’s action against the unjustly built society (in the latter case the individual action coincides with the limit of the level and sense of sociality). In case a person opposes his/her individual values and goals to the social values and goals, when he/she intentionally uses his/her social position for personal advantage by misappropriating public resources in this or that form, this is individual corruption, which is realized in the form of antisocial behaviour of a person, when the person acts against his fellows, when everyone is for himself as the jackal says in the famous fairy tale of Kipling. In this case, it doesn’t matter if the action is legal or illegal by its form. 8

Heffernan, William C., Kleinig, John Private and Public Corruption Rowman & Littlefield, 2004 p. 3 Cressey, Donald R. Other people's money: a study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Smith, 1973 10 Leek, Gordon G. Trust Me: Frauds, Schemes, and Scams and How to Avoid Them Dundurn Press Ltd., 2010 11 Minkes John, Minkes Leonard Corporate and White-Collar Crime SAGE Publications Ltd, 30.06.2008 -

9

14

Individual corruption is the type of corruption, when the person forgets about his/her sociality, his/her social norm and the foundations of his/her social behaviour and is trying to achieve his own little wealth. The choice made by a person in favour of his/her obligations towards the primary society is characteristic of social corruption. The question here is always what a person considers as his/her primary society. For example, the interests of the state, nation or ethnic group, or the interests of class-mates and one’s family, etc. can be seen as primary. There can be a great number of primary groups, the thing is what is the primary identification of the person. A distinguishing feature of social corruption is that one does it not for oneself personally, one’s interest here is mediated by the existence of the primary group. Whatever social function a person performs, no matter how high the person’s position is, he/she is still a representative of a definite social group. In most cases state officials are protégés of their social group, representatives of their group’s interests and by their social nature are meant to defend the interests of this social group. In this special form of corruption behaviour the individual interests of the corrupt official are hidden. They show themselves indirectly through the interests of this or that social group. But it can be rather difficult to define the social group in the interests of which the corrupt official is acting. I remember rather a famous corruption scandal, connected with the participation of the Nigerian team in the world football cup. Then it seemed that one group of officials acted in their clan interests against the other group of officials. However as a result of the consecutive and legal governmental decisions the Nigerian football team was eliminated from the championship, and its place was taken by the Russian team. This seems to be the example of individual, not social corruption, but because there was no representation of the interests of the primary group. Only the fact that the investigation was public prevented this scheme from realization. This example however shows, what a difficult process it is to find out whose interests are realized in this or that corruption operation. In the situation of ubiquitous social corruption, it appears completely impossible for public officials to fulfil any functions without mercenary redistribution of public funds in favour of some social groups or people or others. It means that corruption becomes an indispensable element of the social system. One can’t help being corrupt, in either case one becomes an outlaw or a marginal. It is still possible to be incorruptible only on the lowest level of the hierarchy. On the other end of the social ladder the people are in quite the opposite situation, which in my opinion should be distinguished from corruption. When in the situation of cardinal social changes the state discontinues some social institutions, discontinues their funding, the people, who work for these social institutions, appear to have their position as the only resource for survival. So the employees fulfil this or that social function to a minimum required and all that goes beyond their duties is offered as their own paid service. For example, a teacher works with the class as much as he/she is obliged by the curriculum and the teacher’s work contract, but if one wants one’s child to really know something, one should pay for individual classes. If a person is in hospital, the doctor will examine him/her, will write out a prescription, but if one wants to get an efficient treatment to be really dealt with, the doctor should be paid. 15

In Russia it is called everyday-life corruption. But in fact this is ordinary commoditymoney relations. This means the state optimizes its social expenditures secretly from the ordinary people, decreases to the absurd the amount of social services it provides. For example, a patient who seeks medical attention in a state hospital will be disappointed, as a rule, in such a hospital the fact of his/her visit can hardly be registered, a diagnosis can be formed or an emergency case can be dealt with, but there are no resources for medical treatment. That is why the patient has to pay for these services twice, first through taxes and then directly to the person performing the services, because again the state has no money to pay people. The doctors, who can provide the services, simply cannot do it on their own account all the time – they don’t have resources for that either. The definition of corruption as a social institution enables us to propose a new typology of corruption relations, the criterion for classification being the social subject organizing corruption relations. These subjects can be either individuals or social groups formed according to this or that attribute. Consequently we distinguish between individual and social corruption. The definition social corruption (instead of the obviously possible group corruption) is deemed more accurate, as in the case of social corruption the decisions and the rules of corrupt transactions are determined not by the people. The understanding of objective institutionalization processes of social corruption gives us another perspective on the possible functioning of corruption in the society and the efficient measures of combating corruption. The main conclusion that we were able to make as a result of the analysis of the cultural aspects of this social phenomenon, is that in case of Germany and Russia it is about two quite different types of corruption. In Russia social corruption dominates and presents real danger, in Germany dominating is the individual corruption and as a result is doesn’t institutionalize there. Consequently quite different measures of prevention and struggling with corruption are needed in these two countries. The failure to distinguish between these two types of corruption is an obstacle in the development of the corresponding efficient ways of combating this disease.

5. State corruption The most difficult situation for a society is when one of the many social groups acquires the complete power in the society and subordinates the state governance system. As a result the state itself purposefully follows a corrupt policy. For example, the well-known “Senator for Sale Scandal” in US. The Governour of Illinois who had been selling the seat in the Senate that became vacant after Barack Obama’s election president in all his interviews said there had been no wrong doing, it’s not a crime, everyone does so. Of course, it can be qualified as political corruption. The case has all indications of corruption, but it is a common practice. The state can sell or exchange the opportunity of the official to use his/her public office for performing some necessary social functions. As the Russian Tsar Peter the Great used to say: “His position is so, that he doesn’t need any salary. But every tenth should be hanged once a year in order to frighten them off from stealing”.

16

In traditional society the situation with taking and implementing a decision was much more transparent, in spite of all conspiracy and intrigues that we read about in adventures. It was clear at once, what is to be expected of whom and a person’s reputation preceded him/her. In modern situation of governance and business a person’s reputation doesn’t mean anything. In business a crucial role is played by the economic regulation mechanisms. Be your business partner any kind of villain, if there are mechanisms of control and influence over him/her and the deal is profitable, then you must work with him/her. However, there are no mechanisms of influence on the social group representing the state, as the state itself has that very executive mechanism. That is why it is deadly dangerous to play with the state, to say nothing of playing against it. The state sets the rules of the game and the order in which the rules should be followed. We can only hope, that this or that decision of the state taken in the regime of arbitrary interpretation of laws will be in favour of the society. However in practice the highest officials become millionaires and their wives and close relatives appear billionaire, and it is in the situation of obvious impoverishment of ordinary people in spite of continuous care of them. If we affirm that there exists the state corruption, then at a certain point corrupt decisions come indistinguishable from governance decisions. Then another attribute comes into foreground, the systemic one. Where such corruption exists, it is not the man that makes the position, but the position that makes the man. What does competition for an official position mean? It means that the position is used as a source of income. Where administrative positions become a value in themselves, they come to be used to get rent. In modern reality this situation has been formed long ago: an official position gives social position, income, and the high rank also gives rent, i.e. constant per cent on the invested capital. Blagojevich was frequently reported as having been taped by the FBI saying "I've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. I'm just not giving it up for fucking nothing." In this situation the bureaucracy itself has become a special social group, a clan, a family, a man in the street cannot get the position of a governmental official and even if one does, one cannot keep it if one doesn’t follow the set informal rules. Thus the disappointment of many honest public administrators, as the social functions of public administration lose their meaning, they become clannish and mercenary. Thus the disappointment of honest audit and control officials, as whatever they find out, whatever violations they uncover, the issue of punishment is subject to decision of the same clan, which has the power and in whose interests the violation took place. For example, what was the reason for the real war between public prosecutor's office and investigating committee about arcade games in the Moscow region? The thing is that according to a number of mass media all the arcade games in question belonged to the son of the attorney-general of Russia, consequently it was him who organized all this criminal activity. That is why the public prosecutors covered it up, till the interests of one power group clashed with the interests of the other group. Both in Russia and in the world community a recent case of Viktor Vekselberg has been widely discussed. He bought the former embassy building from Hungary for $21mln and 17

immediately sold it to the Russian government for $116mln, while the market price of the building was estimated at $50mln. The Government of Hungary immediately instituted legal proceedings against those officials who completed the ‘unfortunate’ sale. However, they are obviously innocent, and the secret of the operation should be looked for in the Russian cultural feature. Why is this case possible in Russia, and is not possible in any other G8 country? Why should the state give preferences to one single person? This case is impossible in other countries not only because there is law and order there, but first of all because all participants of economic and political process watch over that law and order. The rest want such profitable deals, too. Why all other business people in Russia keep silent? Because what happened in the case of Vekselberg was all right. These are informal rules of society that run that the state uses its power in a special way. It is a special way of governing the society. V.Putin calls it manual governance, when things happen not in accordance with the written laws, but by unwritten laws (by conventions). The case of Khodorkovsky is another example of this. This is an example of how the unwritten law will work and how inevitable the punishment is for those, who break these unwritten rules. Everyone keeps silent not because Vekselberg pocketed 100 mln, it would have been wrong, but because Vekselberg didn’t pocket the 100 mln, but did everything according the rules. He is not the owner, he only administers public resources. It is with assistance of Vekselberg that finance from one public pocket is put in another. As a result of such transactions Skolkovo and high speed roads appear, and Fabergee eggs are back in Russia. There is no proper corruption in these situations. It is the mechanism of governing the state in manual mode through authorized representatives. In the same way was UKOS bought out, when Baykal invest group suddenly appeared and disappeared. This is not antisocial activity, neither is this state activity. Nowadays, in Russia the state is the first to abuse its position for personal gain, and more specifically it is the group of people who possess power use their position for personal enrichment. It is that very manual mode of governance, when favour of power and vicinity of power play the role of government. If the main sign of corruption is the abuse by the subject of his/her social position, then it follows that the main corrupt subject is the state. For example, what is the use of administrative resource during elections? It means the use of public resources of power and all its attributes to achieve personal goal, preserving one’s positions and privileges. It is pure corruption. It is the most dangerous corruption for a society. When dead people from the cemeteries vote at presidential election in the USA, the whole country becomes a giant and hypocritical cemetery. When all patients of mental hospitals vote unanimously for one party, the whole country becomes a huge mental institution. Corruption way of struggling for public resources in a way can be seen as similar to the power struggle in a society: in both cases the loser is announced a criminal, and success is never blamed. One can say that a person following the norms of his/her social groups in spite of his/her official duties certainly commits a crime, as he/she doesn’t act in the interests of the whole society, but in the interests of one social group.

18

But if this social group holds the power, if the courts, prosecutors offices parliament consists of members of the same social group than the corrupt official doesn’t risk anything. No one punish him/her for acting in favour of this social group even in spite all current laws, with the exception of extremely special cases, extreme instability in the country or highly explosive situation in the country, when in Russia, too, selected boyars were thrown down from the Kremlin wall in the hands of the enraged people. The group members can protect the corrupt official against the formal laws, because the group is not interested in this person disappearing, just the contrary the group is interested in this person’s having power and continuing to promote the group’s interests. That is why the official doesn’t risk almost anything, he/she won’t be punished. On the contrary the official taking decisions to disadvantage his/her social group will always be punished. He will get no protection against the informal laws, either, if he/she acts counter to the interests of his social group. The punishment is guaranteed exactly in accordance with his/her fault, strictly and unavoidably, otherwise the social group cannot survive. The results of our study demonstrated, that the consciousness of all social groups in Russia there is a belief and expectation of constant increase of public officials’ incomes. The German public opinion doesn’t demonstrate such conviction, on the contrary, there is the belief that the income of the public official is relatively unchangeable and remains the same in accordance with the social niche and position. Whereas the Russian interviewees stated that a public official should get richer all the time – it is a convention. That is why the state often asks business people to take part in something, for example, in establishing the Russian school of economics, or in preparing the Olympic Games, etc. This is the situation of cancelling formal rules and the prevalence of informal rules over the formal ones. Any means are good, if it is declared that they are for the good of people. What politician didn’t ever use the manual mode of governance? Try to find information about investors in the largest Russian national projects, such as Skolkovo, Russian School of Economics, etc. We didn’t succeed in that. The reason is obviously that such information can show the redistribution of finance inside the ruling group. In modern society such manual governance creates the basis for giant abuse of power. The presence of systemic corruption points directly at such state of things. The activity of the ruling group, and consequently of public administration appears counter to the very essence of the state as it substitutes the goals of public governance and doesn’t coincide with the interest of the society, breaks legal and moral norms. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Cressey, Donald R. Other people's money: a study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Smith, 1973 2. de Sardan, Olivier A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa? In The Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol. 37, № 1, (Mar. 1999) 3. Heffernan, William C., Kleinig, John Private and Public Corruption Rowman & Littlefield, 2004

19

4. Leek, Gordon G. Trust Me: Frauds, Schemes, and Scams and How to Avoid Them Dundurn Press Ltd., 2010 5. Minkes John, Minkes Leonard Corporate and White-Collar Crime SAGE Publications Ltd, 30.06.2008 6. Scott, James C. Comparative Political Corruption Prentice-Hall, 1972 7. Transparency International FAQ URL http://archive.transparency.org/news_room/faq/corruption_faq 8. Егорова Н.А К концепции уголовного законодательства России о противодействии коррупции // Российская юстиция. 2007. № 8. С. 11-12. 9. Седлениекс К. Параллель между Латвией и Азанде: коорупция как колдовство в латвийском обществе переходного периода.// Борьба с ветряными мельницами? Социально- антропологический подход к исследованию коррупции. /Сост. Отв. редактор. И.Б.Олимпиева, О.В.Панченков. – СПб.: Олитейя, 2007. С. 202 10. Состояние бытовой коррупции в Российской Федерации (на основании результатов социологического исследования, проведенного во втором полу годии 2010 г.) – Общероссийский общественный фонд «Общественное мнение», Министерство экономического развития Россйской федерации. М. – 2011, С. 13

20