Corruption in unlikely places
The case of Denmark seen through Luhmann’s system theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1858Keywords:
Corruption, system theory, genealogy, public administration reform, DenmarkAbstract
Corruption, defined as the “misuse of public position for private gain”, represents an act of deviance from official duties in the interest of self-enrichment. Denmark is ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Danish court records, however, show that corruption cases have appeared in the 21st century. Using Luhmann’s systems theory and Foucault’s method of genealogy, this article asks how this has happened. I argue that understanding corruption in Denmark may go back to changes in public administration ideas and practices since the 1990. New Public Management reform has increased the complexity in public administration where meaning horizons of communication related to different functional systems – especially the sub-systems of law and economy – clashes. I theorise and illustrate using court cases how the coexistence of different codes creates an environment for public employees that in some circumstances – however still rare – result in corruption.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
14(5)_Pedersen_OSLS 107
XML_14(5)_Pedersen_OSLS 2
References
Andersson, S., and Erlingsson, G.O., 2012. New Public Management and Risk of Corruption: The Case of Sweden. Chapter 2. In: D. Tänzler, K. Maras and A. Giannakopoulos, eds., The Social Construction of Corruption in Europe. Farnham: Ashgate, 33–57.
Argandoña, A., 2003. Private-to-private corruption. Journal of Business Ethics [online], 47, 253–267. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026266219609 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026266219609
Bardhan, P., 1997. Corruption and Development: a Review of Issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(3), 1320–1346.
Bates, R.H., 1988. Toward a political economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Behn, R.D., 1998. The new public management paradigm and the search for democratic accountability. International Public Management Journal [online], 1(2), 131–164. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7494(99)80088-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7494(99)80088-9
Bellé, N., 2015. Performance-Related Pay and the Crowding Out of Motivation in the Public Sector: A Randomized Field Experiment. Public Administrative Review [online], 75(2), 230–241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12313 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12313
Brans, M., and Rossbach, S., 1997. The autopoiesis of Administrative Systems: Niklas Luhmann on public Administration and Public Policy. Public Administration [online], 75, 417–439. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00068
Bryer, T.A., 2007. Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory [online], 17(3), 479–500. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul010
Caiden, G.E., and Caiden, N.J., 1977. Administrative Corruption. Public Administration Review [online], 37(3), 301–309. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/974828 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/974828
Christensen. T., and Lægrid, P., eds., 2001. New Public Management: The transformation of Ideas and Practices. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., and Teorell, J., 2011. The Merit of Meritocratization: Politics, Bureaucracy, and the Institutional Deterrents of Corruption. Political Research Quarterly [online], 65(3), 656–668. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911408109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911408109
de Sousa, L., and Moriconi, M., 2013. Why voters do not throw the rascals out? – A conceptual framework for analysing electoral punishment of corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change [online], 60, 471–502. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9483-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9483-5
Foucault, M., 1980. “Two Lectures” chapter 5, 78–108. In: C. Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon Books.
Garland, D., 2014. What is a ‘history of the present’? On Foucault’s genealogies and their critical preconditions. Punishment & Society [online], 16(4), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514541711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514541711
Graeff, P., 2010. Social capital: the dark side. Chapter 9. In: G.T. Svendsen and G. Svendsen, G., eds., Handbook of Social Capital [online]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 143–161. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848447486.00017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848447486.00017
Hiller, P., 2010. Understanding corruption: how systems theory can help. In: G.d. Graaf, P.v. Maravic and P. Wagenaar, eds., The good cause: theoretical perspectives on corruption [online]. Opladen: B. Budrich, 64–82. Available at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-368792
Holmberg, S., and Rothstein, B., 2011. Dying of corruption. Health Economics, Policy and Law [online], 6(4), 529–547. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413311000023X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413311000023X
Huntington, S.P., 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Jensen, M.F., 2013. Korruption og embedsetik. Danske embedsmænds korruption i perioden 1800–1866 [Corruption and civil servant’s ethics. Danish civil servants’ corruption in the period 1800–1860]. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Johannsen, L., et al., 2016. Private-to-Private Corruption: A survey on Danish and Estonian business environment [online]. Tallinn: Justiitsministeerium (Ministry of Justice). Tallinn. Available at: https://www.korruptsioon.ee/sites/default/files/2023-04/private-to-private_corruption_final_report_2.pdf
Karklins, R., 2002. Typology of Post-Communist Corruption. Problems of Post-Communism [online], 49(4), 22–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2002.11655993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2002.11655993
Klitgaard, R., 1988. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kunicova, J., and Rose-Ackermann, S., 2005. Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science [online], 35(4), 373–406. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000311
Kurer, O., 2005. Corruption. An alternative approach to its Definition and Measurement. Political Studies [online], 53(1), 222–239. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00525.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00525.x
Laursen, K.B., Harste, G., and Roth, S., 2022. Moral communication observed with social systems theory. An introduction. Kybernetes [online], 51(5), 1653–1665. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2022-0059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2022-0059
Luhmann, N. (with F. Kastner, ed.), 2004. Law as a social system [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198262381.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198262381.001.0001
Luhmann, N., 1982. The differentiation of society [online]. New York: Columbia University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7312/luhm90862 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/luhm90862
Luhmann, N., 1990. Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia University Press.
MacIntyre, A., 2010. After virtue. 3rd ed. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in 1981).
Mauss, M., 2016. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, expanded edition Selected, Annotated and Translated by Jane I. Guyer. Chicago: Hou Books. (Originally published in 1925).
Mungiu-Pippidi, A., 2015. The Quest for Good Governance. How Societies Develop Control of Corruption [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316286937 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316286937
Nunberg, B., 2000. Ready for Europe: public administration reform and European Union accession in Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: World Bank Technical paper, 466.
Nye, J.S., 1967. Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. American Political Science Review [online], 61(2), 417–427. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1953254 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1953254
Osborne, D., 1997. Corruption as Counter-culture: Attitudes to Bribery in Local and Global Society. In: B.A.K. Rider, ed., Corruption. The Enemy Within. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law international, 9–34.
Ostrom, E., 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997. The American Political Science Review [online], 92(1), 1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2585925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2585925
Ostrom, E., 2000. Crowding out Citizenship. Scandinavian Political Studies [online], 23(1), 3–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.00028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.00028
Paternoster, R., and Simpson, S., 1996. Sanctions Threats and appeals to Morality: Testing a Rational Choice model of Corporate Crime. Law & Society Review [online], 30(3), 549–583. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3054128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3054128
Persson, A., Rothstein, B., and Teorell, J., 2013. Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail – Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. Governance [online], 26(3), 449–471. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
Pinto, J., Leana, C.R., and Pil, F.K., 2008. Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review [online], 33(3), 685–709. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465726 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465726
Rabl, T., and Kühlmann, T.M., 2009. Why or why not? Rationalizing corruption in organizations. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal [online], 16, 268–286. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600910977355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600910977355
Roth, S., and Valentinov, V., 2020. East of nature. Accounting for the Environments of Social Sciences. Ecological Economics [online], 176(106734), 1–7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106734
Rothstein, B., 2001. Anti-Corruption: The Indirect ‘Big-Bang’ Approach. Review of International Political Economy [online], 18(2), 228–250. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09692291003607834 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09692291003607834
Rothstein, B., and Teorell, J., 2008. What is Quality of Government. Governance [online], 21(2), 165–190. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x
Serritzlew, S., Sønderskov, K.M., and Svendsen, G.T., 2014. Do Corruption and Social Trust affect Economic Growth? A Review. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis [online], 16(2), 121–139. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2012.741442 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2012.741442
Siltala, J., 2013. New Public Management: The Evidence-Based Worst Practice? Administration & Society [online], 45(4), 468–493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713483385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713483385
Treisman, D., 2000. The causes of corruption. A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics [online], 76(3), 399–45. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4
Von Marvic, P., and Reichard, C., 2003. New Public Management and corruption: IPMN Dialogue and analysis. International Public Management Review, 4(1), 84–130.
Weber, M., 1968. Bureaucracy. In: M. Weber, Economy and Society vol. 2. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Karin Pedersen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
