A new paper published in the Annual Review of Political Science explores how we can improve anti-corruption efforts using a “new arrow in the quiver”: the social norms approach. Claudia Baez Camargo, Head of Prevention, Research and Innovation and a co-author of the paper, explains why the social norms approach is crucial for anti-corruption efforts, and shares some of the paper’s main messages for practitioners and researchers. The full paper, “Corruption and social norms: a new arrow in the quiver” is available at Annual Reviews.

We have, by now, understood that it is impossible to legislate corruption away. Most countries in the world have adequate legal and institutional frameworks in place to counter corruption. They have also adopted measures such as tougher penalties for corruption offences and stronger administrative controls, and created dedicated anti-corruption agencies. And yet, corruption persists.

Scholars have identified this as an “implementation gap”, highlighting the difficulties in enforcing existing laws and policies to counter corruption. Even targeted anti-corruption interventions are often not effective enough – a significant body of research has shown that many fail to have the expected effect, or produce results that fade soon after the intervention ends. 

Why does this gap exist, and how can we do better? There are several important considerations:

Don’t blame the bad apple

Corruption is very rarely the result of individual “bad apples” abusing power. Rather, evidence suggests that corruption is a highly networked phenomenon involving groups whose collective actions enable the emergence of or entrench a corrupt system. 

Research has shown that people behave differently when they are acting as part of a group than when they are acting individually. This can happen, for example, when peer pressure to conform to group behaviour undermines the effect of any legal provision prohibiting the behaviour in question.

And yet, most conventional anti-corruption approaches target the behaviour and incentives of individuals.

The illusion of the Homus Economicus

Behavioural science research has shown that we are not always the rational decision-makers whose behaviour underpins the assumptions of classical economic theory. Humans do not always (or even usually) follow a traditional cost-benefit analysis in their decision making. Instead, we often operate according to social norms, with collectively held beliefs and the desire for social belonging producing behaviour that defies rational thinking.

This behaviour may therefore contradict anti-corruption incentives or formal legal prescriptions, and can leave practitioners frustrated with lacklustre results.

Social-norms tinted glasses

In response to these considerations, scholars and practitioners are increasingly seeing the importance of analysing corruption in the social context in which it exists, identifying its drivers (the why) and enablers (the how), and the relationship between these factors.

This “social norms approach” can enhance our understanding of corruption and, therefore, the design of anti-corruption reforms by taking into account:

• the context-specific practices that affect corruption and anti-corruption outcomes in different regions and settings;
• the informal social networks that bind actors together:
• the self-reinforcing “glue” of common understandings, mutual expectations and accepted behaviours;
• the stubbornness of these social practices.

Ask better questions, get better answers 

By asking the right questions, we can produce tangible results to make anti-corruption interventions more effective and sustainable.

In the paper we ask and answer the following questions:

1. What are the complexities and gaps in the definition of corruption and the shortcomings of leading theories of corruption?
2. How do social norms influence corrupt behaviour?
3. How can social norms be factored into anti-corruption policy and programming?
4. How can research be incorporated more efficiently and effectively on the ground?

Any response to corruption has to reflect its multi-faceted and intrinsically human (i.e. messy) nature. Applying a social norms lens is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and corruption does not always fit into neat bureaucratic or legal categories. Citizens will often differ in their understanding of what constitutes corruption. An in-depth analysis of the specific social context in which the corruption takes place is always a necessary first step.

We should develop practical methodological approaches so that anti-corruption agencies can more easily identify specific social norms driving a corrupt practice. And we need more empirical investigation of the interaction between the various factors, including social norms, historical norms, the political system, the institutional system and individual factors such as gender, age, income and personality traits, that influence an individual’s choice to engage in a corrupt act.