Monthly Archives: May 2024

New Podcast Episode, Featuring Ketakandriana Rafitoson

Posted on by
Reply
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this episode, host Tom Shipley interviews Ketakandriana Rafitoson, the Executive Director of Transparency International Madagascar and the Vice Chair of Transparency International. The interview focuses on the problem of “state capture” in Madagascar, emphasizing how this problem has manifested in key sectors such as natural resources, and how outside actors (countries and international firms) have contributed to the problem, and how civil society actors are using innovative approaches to fight back against networks of corrupt actors. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack was originally founded as a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). It is now hosted and managed by the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends!

Does Corruption Flourish in a “Culture of Corruption”?

Posted on by
Reply

A common intuition about corruption is that individuals are more likely to engage in corruption when they witness others committing corrupt acts without facing serious consequences—in other words, a “culture of corruption” can be self-perpetuating (see here and here), and the perception or belief that corruption is widespread can itself be a cause of corruption. While compelling, this intuition has not been subjected to much empirical scrutiny. While there does seem to be some evidence of an association between individuals’ perceptions of the prevalence of domestic corruption and those individuals’ inclination to act corruptly, the research on this topic is relatively thin.

In a recent paper, a group of academics (Israel Waismel-Manor, Patricia Moy, Rico Neumann, and Moran Shechnick) weighed in, presenting the results of a controlled lab experiment that sought to assess whether news about corruption by public officials affected individuals’ incentives to behave dishonestly. The study was conducted in Israel, and participants were required first to watch a short television news segment. The treatment group’s segment revolved around an Israeli mayor suspected of certain corrupt acts, while the control group’s segment was unrelated to corruption. The participants were also given a short quiz about the segment they’d seen, and half of the participants in each group were offered a monetary reward if they answered all the questions correctly; they were told “to answer all questions from memory” and not look anything up on the internet. However, unbeknownst to the participants, one of the questions could not be answered without doing additional searches, so the researchers could use the answer to this question to identify those participants who cheated on the test. The real goal of the study (of which participants were not aware) was to see whether exposure to the corruption news story (alone or in combination with the financial incentive) affected participants’ likelihood of cheating.

Unsurprisingly, participants who were offered money for answering all questions correctly cheated far more often, regardless of which news story they watched. The study’s authors seem to have expected that those participants who watched the corruption-related story would also cheat more (holding constant whether they had financial incentives to answer questions correctly). But this did not occur: Participants who watched the news segment involving a mayor suspected of corruption did not cheat in statistically significantly higher rates than those who watched the other, unrelated-to-corruption segment. The researchers suggested that perhaps the reason was that Israelis had been inundated with so much news about official corruption around the time of the experiment (which took place in 2019), particularly in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior politicians (see here, here, and here), that the marginal impact of exposure to additional news about corruption, in the form of this one story, would not have much impact.

While that explanation is plausible, I have some other concerns about the research’s design and methodology, which make me question whether this experiment was in fact a good way to assess the “culture of corruption” hypothesis.

Continue reading →

Anticorruption Protests in Central and Eastern Europe: What They Do and How They Can Do More

Posted on by
Reply

The beginning of 2024 was a period of unrest for several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In Slovakia, a series of protests erupted over Prime Minister Robert Fico’s plan to weaken the country’s anticorruption infrastructure. Meanwhile, in Albania, demonstrators took to the streets alleging corruption in the cabinet, demanding investigations, seeking the end of retaliatory investigations against opposition figures, and pushing for the ouster of corrupt officials. And journalists in Croatia turned out in masses to protest a whistleblowing law that would make the investigation of misconduct more difficult.

These aren’t the first anticorruption protests in CEE, and they won’t be the last. Over the past decade, citizens in CEE countries have become much more attuned to the problem of corruption and to their governments’ failure to do much about it. The result has been numerous episodes of citizen-based anticorruption movements. But while such movements have great potential for spurring meaningful change, many have proved ineffective. Why is this? Examining past episodes—for example, in Bulgaria, Slovakia, and the Balkans—may help us better understand the conditions under which anticorruption demonstrations succeed. These past episodes offer a few key lessons:

Continue reading →

The Quotidian Corruption of the NYPD

Posted on by
2

In April 2024, the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) released a scathing report on how the New York City Police Department (NYPD) enforces parking laws in New York City. The report found, in relevant part, that the NYPD frequently opts to turn a blind eye to illegally parked vehicles displaying inapplicable or expired parking permits, letting NYPD and other City Government employees park illegally with no consequences. The DOI also found that the NYPD “has no written policies or procedures” for enforcing parking laws in the areas around police precincts and other government buildings in NYC, and Traffic Enforcement Agents told DOI investigators that were subject to internal discipline if they issued parking tickets in sufficiently close proximity to NYPD precinct buildings. This parking permit enforcement problem comes on top of the longstanding problem of “ticket fixing,” in which officers make parking and traffic tickets “disappear” as favors for friends. A favorite technique for helping friends or family (or those willing to pay) get out of tickets (or worse) is the practice of police officers giving out (or even selling) “PBA cards” (named for the Police Benevolent Association, the largest municipal police union in the world); with a quick flash of a PBA card, drivers can avoid a speeding ticket or even arrest. PBA cards have long been identified as a notorious example of petty corruption within the NYPD (see here, here, and here, and here). In fact, an NYPD officer sued the department last year, alleging he was demoted for ticketing a cardholder who was a friend of his supervisor (see here and here).

These are examples of what we might call “quotidian corruption”: officers deciding that low-level civil laws apply to some members of the public but not others, and engaging in this selective non-enforcement to help out friends, family, or those with the right connections. While there are certainly far more important forms of police misconduct, such as racial bias and improper use of deadly force, it would be a mistake not to take quotidian police corruption seriously. As one former NYPD police officer turned prosecutor and law professor commented, in connection with a high-profile ticket fixing scandal, even though the alleged behavior might not be “seriously corrupt,” ticket fixing must stop “for the sake of the public trust[] and the NYPD’s own reputation.” 

The NYPD is unlikely to address these problems itself. Even if the NYPD leadership decided to support more evenhanded enforcement for these low-level offenses, police unions would likely prevent any such reforms from taking place. This leaves the possibility of reform largely in the hands of New York City Government. Here are three potential reforms that City Government could undertake to help combat the quotidian corruption permeating the NYPD, listed in order from least to most challenging:

Continue reading →

New Podcast Episode, Featuring John Penrose

Posted on by
1
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this episode, Robert Barrington interviews John Penrose, a UK Member of Parliament who served as the government’s Anti-Corruption Champion from 2017-2022. Mr. Penrose explains the role and function of the Anti-Corruption Champion position and what he learned from his time serving in that position. He discusses the major developments and drivers behind UK anticorruption policy during this period, as well as his decision to resign from the position during Boris Johnson’s administration. The interview concludes with some discussion of what the UK’s anticorruption infrastructure could and should look like in the years to come. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack was originally founded as a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). It is now hosted and managed by the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends!

The Invisible Front: Russia’s Corruption-Themed Propaganda War Against Ukraine

Posted on by
2

The concept of “strategic corruption”—defined by the U.S. government as “when a government weaponizes corrupt practices as a tenet of its foreign policy”—has recently gained prominence as an important way to understand Russian foreign policy in the former Soviet republics, and elsewhere. The country that has faced the most sustained and systematic Russian state-sponsored strategic corruption campaign is almost certainly Ukraine. For the two decades preceding Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Russia employed a wide variety of corrupt measures to influence Ukrainian politics, including the sale of vast quantities of discounted fossil fuels to bribe pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs and create a political class aligned with Kremlin interests (as exemplified by the “outrageously corrupt” tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych after his election in 2010); the cultivation of sympathetic media empires in the country; and money-driven attempts to discredit American officials perceived as obstacles to Russian influence. 

Much has been written on Russia’s use of this sort of strategic corruption. But there’s another aspect of Russia’s strategy that has become especially prominent since the 2022 invasion: using propaganda and disinformation to spread and amplify the narrative that Ukraine is pervasively corrupt. Here lies a paradox: for two decades, Russia deliberately fostered corruption in Ukraine to keep its neighbor firmly under its influence, and now Russia is seeking to leverage Ukraine’s reputation for corrupt practices to undermine Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia’s invasion.

Continue reading →

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erosion of U.S. Anticorruption Law Continues

Posted on by
4

The U.S. Supreme Court has been chipping away at the federal public corruption prosecutor’s toolkit over the past decade, in cases like McDonnell v. United States, Kelly v. United States, and Percoco v. United States. This past month, the Court heard oral arguments in a case called Snyder v. United States, which may further undermine federal prosecutors’ ability to go after state and local corruption. If the Court finds in favor of the defendant in Snyder, it could create a roadmap for American state and local government officials to profit from private interests at the expense of the public they are supposed to serve.

The specific statute at issue in the Snyder case is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 666. That statute, which happens to be the most prosecuted public corruption statute in the U.S., makes it a federal crime for a state or local official to “corruptly solicit[,] demand[,] …or accept[] … anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any” federally funded program. The question at issue in the Snyder case is whether this statute criminalizes so-called gratuities—payments made in recognition of actions that a covered official has taken or has committed to take, but without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions in exchange for the payment. The facts of the Snyder case illustrate this sort of payment: James Snyder, while mayor of Portage, Indiana, accepted $13,000, allegedly for “consulting services,” from a truck company shortly after that company was awarded a contract to sell garbage trucks to the city government. There is no evidence that the company offered or promised Snyder the payments in exchange for the contract. Nevertheless, the federal prosecutors successfully argued at trial that proving such an offer was unnecessary, because as long as the prosecution could show that the alleged “consulting fee” was actually a gratuity—a payment made by the company to thank, or reward, Snyder for the contract—then Snyder’s acceptance of this payment was enough to violate § 666.

It’s true, as Snyder’s lawyers argued to the Supreme Court, that the language of the statute does not explicitly include “gratuities.” But reading § 666 as covering gratuities is the only sensible way to read the statute if we are truly concerned with preventing public officials from being bought.

Continue reading →

Personnel is Policy: Why Argentina’s Latest Supreme Court Nominee Threatens Anticorruption Efforts

Posted on by
3

Last November, Javier Milei, a former economics professor and political outsider, won the presidency of Argentina, riding a wave of popular outrage against the political elite. The roots of that outrage are not hard to understand: Argentina is in the midst of a historic economic crisis, with out-of-control inflation and skyrocketing poverty. And many believe, with some justification, that Argentina’s deep-rooted political corruption is partly to blame. Argentina has been rocked by a series of corruption scandals, several of which have been documented on this blog (see here, here, and here). In campaigning on a platform of radical economic reform, Milei promised to take on the “parasites” and “thieves” who comprise the corrupt elite. After Milei’s victory, he immediately faced a problem in advancing his policy agenda: his newly-created party won just 44 out of 329 seats in Congress. That left Milei with two options: He could either take the traditional route of trying to form alliances with other parties to get some form of compromise reform package through Congress, or he could push the constitutional envelope by trying to enact aggressive reforms through executive fiat. Milei has chosen the latter path. This is not surprising: He was always going to face an uphill battle getting Congress onboard with his aggressive reforms, as there are simply too many entrenched interests, and Milei himself is an exceptionally polarizing figure. But pushing through radical reforms without congressional consent will require approval of the Supreme Court, an institution deeply embedded in the political caste.

In seeking to secure Supreme Court approval of his attempt to radically restructure the economy by executive fiat, Milei appears poised to make Argentina’s corruption problem even worse. Many observers believe that one of Argentina’s current Justices—a savvy political power player named Ricardo Lorenzetti—offered Milei a deal: If Milei would appoint Lorenzetti’s allies to fill the two vacant seats on the Court—which would give Lorenzetti’s faction a majority—Lorenzetti would use his influence to ensure favorable judicial treatment of Milei’s aggressive reforms in the justice system. One of the two nominees that Milei has put forward, a Lorenzetti ally named Ariel Lijo, is one of the Argentine judiciary’s most notoriously corrupt figures. One can see why Milei was tempted to stack the Court with Justices who would reliably side with him, but this is a Faustian bargain that poses a grave and long-term danger to anticorruption efforts in Argentina.

Continue reading

New Podcast Episode, Featuring Tom Burgis

Posted on by
Reply
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this episode, host Liz Dávid-Barrett speaks to Tom Burgis, a journalist and author who has written extensively on corruption and kleptocracy around the world. The interview covers a range of topics, including is forthcoming book, Cuckooland, which grapples with some of the challenges for journalists in scrutinizing public figures in a “post-truth” society. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack was originally founded as a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). It is now hosted and managed by the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends!