What do you think?
Rate this book
Corruption: What Everyone Needs to Know
Corruption regularly makes front page headlines: public officials embezzling government monies, selling public offices, and trading bribes for favors to private companies generate public indignation and calls for reform. In Corruption: What Everyone Needs to Know?, renowned scholars Ray Fisman and Miriam A. Golden provide a deeper understanding of why corruption is so damaging politically, socially, and economically. Among the key questions examined are: is corruption the result of perverse economic incentives? Does it stem from differences in culture and tolerance for illicit acts of government officials? Why don't voters throw corrupt politicians out of office? Vivid examples from a wide range of countries and situations shed light on the causes of corruption, and how it can be combated.
336 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 10, 2017
52 people are currently reading
188 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 22, 2018
An unfortunately mediocre book on an important topic. It was a slog to get through. I really like the authors as people, so I was disappointed. Essentially a reciting of a list of studies on the subject. These studies are unfortunately mostly contradictory, and without external validity.
The authors take as a framework the idea of corruption as equilibrium behavior. In other words, people are corrupt in corrupt societies because everyone else is and vice versa. While logical, the theory is unverified from the data (the authors point to some dramatic examples of corruption tipping points in places like Italy, but this is certainly not decisive evidence). Further, there's lot's of confusion between norms-as-interests and norms-as-coordination. Certainly if everyone started to believe corruption is bad, there would be less of it. But is that because people don't think others will act corruptly and coordinate, or because they don't want to do it in itself?
The book begins with a correlation between national income and corruption and they are shown to go together. There is no causal relationship attempted to be made. Yet, the authors declare that the 'efficient corruption hypothesis' -- the idea that corruption exists to get out of bad regulations and shouldn't be halted -- must be incorrect. I agree that it is counter-intuitive, but the argument the authors use -- that corruption leads to the creation of stupid regulations -- doesn't quite work.
The book is basically a long list of contradictory studies, with no clear insights to be gained, other than 'shit's complicated' (they even -- I can't believe this came from a social scientist -- settle on a 'great man' theory of corruption; whether a dictatorship is corrupt is the choice of the dictator, and, I quote "norm change defines the role of a great leader"). It's a shame if that's actually the state of the literature, but then there's not much to be learned from the literature. I suspect more is known though, and I look forward to the book communicating these insights.
The authors take as a framework the idea of corruption as equilibrium behavior. In other words, people are corrupt in corrupt societies because everyone else is and vice versa. While logical, the theory is unverified from the data (the authors point to some dramatic examples of corruption tipping points in places like Italy, but this is certainly not decisive evidence). Further, there's lot's of confusion between norms-as-interests and norms-as-coordination. Certainly if everyone started to believe corruption is bad, there would be less of it. But is that because people don't think others will act corruptly and coordinate, or because they don't want to do it in itself?
The book begins with a correlation between national income and corruption and they are shown to go together. There is no causal relationship attempted to be made. Yet, the authors declare that the 'efficient corruption hypothesis' -- the idea that corruption exists to get out of bad regulations and shouldn't be halted -- must be incorrect. I agree that it is counter-intuitive, but the argument the authors use -- that corruption leads to the creation of stupid regulations -- doesn't quite work.
The book is basically a long list of contradictory studies, with no clear insights to be gained, other than 'shit's complicated' (they even -- I can't believe this came from a social scientist -- settle on a 'great man' theory of corruption; whether a dictatorship is corrupt is the choice of the dictator, and, I quote "norm change defines the role of a great leader"). It's a shame if that's actually the state of the literature, but then there's not much to be learned from the literature. I suspect more is known though, and I look forward to the book communicating these insights.
December 29, 2019
One of my favorite books on corruption. I even had the opportunity to attend a conference on the book by Ray in Mexico City.
December 24, 2017
Good overview of the topic of corruption. Book is very readable, and has a good mix of examples and theory.
June 12, 2020
A useful book for lay readers who have no understanding of what corruption is, how it manifests itself, what are its impacts and how it can be effectively combated. The authors' writing style is not jargon-y at all, which makes the book an enjoyable read. They use many examples and anecdotes from several countries to illustrate how complicated and multifaceted the process of fighting corruption is, and how countless factors come into play that either derail or strengthen anti-corruption efforts. A strong point of the book is its emphasis on the fact that there is no "silver bullet" to fight corruption, and that anti-corruption efforts are instead long and arduous processes involving countless actors (e.g. citizens, the media, civil society organizations/NGOs, reform-oriented officials within the bureaucracy and honest elected officials with integrity etc.).
Some sections are perhaps overly simplified, and certain events rapidly brushed over (e.g. when the authors mention how social media outlets were used to coordinate protests during the Arab uprisings of 2011, they frame this in the context of "reformers" wanting to see anti-corruption efforts - needless to say, framing millions of citizens as simply "reformers" is very problematic as it ignores the revolutionary and transformative dimension of the protest movements, and risks framing them as simply "movements seeking tweaks in a system" rather than "movements seeking grand systemic changes", which they were).
All in all, the authors specifically state that this book is aimed at a general non-specialist audience, and the book is true to this purpose. It is a useful primer on corruption that everyday citizens, students and even civil servants, researchers and scholars on public policy and governance will find useful and even entertaining to read.
Some sections are perhaps overly simplified, and certain events rapidly brushed over (e.g. when the authors mention how social media outlets were used to coordinate protests during the Arab uprisings of 2011, they frame this in the context of "reformers" wanting to see anti-corruption efforts - needless to say, framing millions of citizens as simply "reformers" is very problematic as it ignores the revolutionary and transformative dimension of the protest movements, and risks framing them as simply "movements seeking tweaks in a system" rather than "movements seeking grand systemic changes", which they were).
All in all, the authors specifically state that this book is aimed at a general non-specialist audience, and the book is true to this purpose. It is a useful primer on corruption that everyday citizens, students and even civil servants, researchers and scholars on public policy and governance will find useful and even entertaining to read.
June 4, 2019
Worth reading, interesting examples, I think their central thesis has merit, but the topic would need a better comparison with different approaches, and also a more in-depth discussion and interpretation of what empirical data we have; as it is, it's too much theorizing for what is presented about the "real world". Still, as a complete layman it was worthwhile, and it's also an easy read.
July 25, 2023
Käännös ei ollut kovin sujuva, todella paljon ihan ihmeellistä interferenssiä. Aiheena tärkeä, mutta huomioni kiinnittyi taas ulkoisiin tekijöihin.
November 10, 2020
A good summary of the political economy of corruption for most uninitiated readers, and a helpful blueprint to related scholarship. However, on too many occasions the authors missed opportunities to settle disputes in the literature—those related to the definition of corruption and cronyism developed markets, especially.
More specifically, I would have appreciated a longer and more detailed evaluation of the effects of interest groups and lobbies in the United States as it fits within their definition of corruption, the relative advantages and disadvantages of term limits, and a guide to the costs and benefits campaign finance reform. They simply acknowledged these questions and moved on, rather than unpacking valuable recent research in those areas.
More specifically, I would have appreciated a longer and more detailed evaluation of the effects of interest groups and lobbies in the United States as it fits within their definition of corruption, the relative advantages and disadvantages of term limits, and a guide to the costs and benefits campaign finance reform. They simply acknowledged these questions and moved on, rather than unpacking valuable recent research in those areas.
April 15, 2017
I really liked this book. Takes one important topic and looks at it from loads of angles.
Corruption is a hard one to cover as by nature it is covered up. They could have been more polemic and less academic angle. But I'm not sure it would have been as convincing.
Similar books are Blueprint for Revolution on a funny end of revolution
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Or Bryan Caplan for more on economics of one thing
Corruption is a hard one to cover as by nature it is covered up. They could have been more polemic and less academic angle. But I'm not sure it would have been as convincing.
Similar books are Blueprint for Revolution on a funny end of revolution
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Or Bryan Caplan for more on economics of one thing
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews