Layers of Decision: Linking Social Definitions of Corruption and Willingness To Take Action

• NCJ Number: 161055
• Journal: Crime, Law and Social Change Volume: 23 Issue: 4 Dated: (1995) Pages: 315-343
• Author(s): A Gorta; S Forell
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 29 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study in New South Wales (Australia) examined the link between how and why people define various types of behavior as "corrupt" and the type of action they take about that conduct.

Abstract

Specifically, the study addressed how and why public-sector employees define some behaviors as corrupt, factors that may hinder public-sector employees from taking action about corruption they may observe at work, and the link between the aforementioned two factors. Questionnaires were distributed to a random sample of 1,978 New South Wales public-sector employees between May and August 1993. A total of 1,313 of these questionnaires were completed and returned. Twelve scenarios were chosen to depict various types of potentially corrupt conduct that could occur in any public-sector organization. For each scenario, respondents were asked the same questions. They were requested to rate, on a six-point scale, how desirable they believed the behavior to be, how harmful, and how justified they considered it to be. Respondents were also asked to judge whether the conduct was corrupt or not corrupt. They were then asked what they would do about it. The three scenarios that involved a direct financial gain and where the behavior would be illegal were considered corrupt by most respondents. There was relatively less, although still substantial, agreement among respondents for those scenarios that involved an indirect financial gain. There was significant consensus regarding the scenario that described threats to a potential whistleblower and in the provision of confidential information to a friend. Opinion was divided for the scenarios in which rules were not followed, yet where what may be considered as reasonable outcome for the organization was reached. The results further suggest that although identifying a behavior as corrupt is often a precondition to willingness to take action about the conduct, this is just one of a number of influential factors; in some cases, it is not a factor at all. Suggestions for fostering a common understanding of corruption and the motivation to report corrupt actions are outlined. 4 tables, 4 notes, and 34 references