Locating Civil Society’s Anti-Corruption Role Through Configurational Analysis: Towards A Policy and Research Agenda

PDF
Published: Jun 29, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/hapscpbs.30983
Keywords:
anti-corruption corruption civil society qualitative comparative analysis set relations
Prince Aian G. Villanueva
Corvinus University of Budapest
Abstract

While corruption studies abound, there is a dearth of scholarship that deals with corruption from the perspective of set relations. A configurational analysis of corruption is helpful in understanding the complexity of such phenomenon. For one, given the complex nature of corruption, democratic governments and civil society are prompted to address it via holistic and integrative anti-corruption strategies. This complexity seems to resonate with what qualitative comparative analysts hold regarding the import of contexts and with the configurational character of much of social life. From the perspective of set-theoretic, configurational analysis, in particular qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), corruption should also thus be seen as a conjunctural, equifinal, asymmetrical, and multifinal phenomenon. 

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biography
Prince Aian G. Villanueva, Corvinus University of Budapest

PhD Candidate at the Doctoral School of International Relations and Political Science, Corvinus University of Budapest.

References
Amundsen, I., & Jackson, D. (2021). Rethinking anti-corruption in de-democratising regimes. U4 Anti-corruption Resource Center. CHR. Michelsen Institute.
Boulding, C., & Nelson-Núñez, J. (2014). Civil society and support for the political system in times of crisis. Latin American Research Review, 49(1): 128-154.
Boulding, Carew E. (2014). NGOs, Political Protest, and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cornell, A. & Grimes, M. (2015). Institutions as incentives for civic action: Bureaucratic structures, civil society, and disruptive protests. The Journal of Politics, 77(3): 664-678.
Donaghy, M. (2011). Do participatory governance institutions matter?: Municipal councils and social housing programs in Brazil. Comparative Politics, 44(1): 83-102.
Dunlop, C., Kamkhaji, J., Radaelli, C., Taffoni, G., & Wagemann, C. (2020). Does consultation count for corruption? The causal relations in the EU-28. Journal Of European Public Policy, 27(11): 1718-1741.
Encarnación, O. (2011). Assisting Civil Society and Promoting Democracy. In M. Edwards (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-12.
Giersdorf, S., & Croissant, A. (2011). Civil society and competitive authoritarianism in Malaysia. Journal of Civil Society, 7(1): 1-21.
Greenlee, J., Fischer, M., Gordon, T., & Keating, E. (2007). An Investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4): 676-694.
Grimes, M. (2013). The contingencies of societal acountability: Examining the link between civil society and good government. Studies in Comparative International Development, 48(4): 380–402.
Hao, Y., & Johnston, M. (1995). China's surge of corruption. Journal of Democracy, 6(4): 80-94.
Harris-White, B. & G. White (eds.) (1996). Liberalization and New Forms of Corruption: Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Hira, A. (2016). Broken Windows: Why culture matters in corruption reform. Journal of Developing Societies, 32(1), 1-16.
Ingrams, A. (2018). Democratic transition and transparency reform: An fsQCA analysis of access to information laws in twenty-three countries. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3): 428-436.
Johnston, M. (2009). Syndromes of corruption: Wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mungiu-Pippidi, A., & Dusu, A. E. (2011). Civil society and control of corruption: Assessing governance of Romanian public universities. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5): 526–540.
Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (2007). International handbook on the economics of corruption. UK: Edward Elgar.
Saglie, J., & Sivesind, K. (2018). Civil society institutions or semi-public agencies? State regulation of parties and voluntary organizations in Norway. Journal Of Civil Society, 14(4): 292-310.
Schneider, C., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Stevens, A. (2016). Configurations of corruption: A cross-national qualitative comparative analysis of levels of perceived corruption. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57(4): 183–206.
Sung, H. (2004). Democracy and political corruption: A cross-national comparison. Crime, Law and Social Change, 41(2): 179-193.
Tilly, C. (2003). The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Townsend, J. G., & Townsend, A. R. (2004). Accountability, motivation and practice: NGOs North and South. Social and Cultural Geography, 5(2): 271–284.
Tusalem, R. (2007). A boon or a bane? The role of civil society in third- and fourth-wave democracies. International Political Science Review, 28(3): 361-386.
Uhlin, A. (2009). Which characteristics of civil society organizations support what aspects of democracy? Evidence from Post-communist Latvia. International Political Science Review, 30(3): 271-295.
Uhlin, A. (2010). The structure and culture of post-communist civil society in Latvia. Europe - Asia Studies, 62(5): 829–852.
Varieties of Democracy Project (V-Dem) Report (2020). Available at: https://www.v-dem.net (Accessed: 14/05/2022).
Wampler, B., & Avritzer, L. (2004). Participatory publics: Civil society and new institutions in democratic Brazil. Comparative Politics, 36(3): 291–312.
Yabanci, B. (2019). Turkey’s tamed civil society: Containment and appropriation under a competitive authoritarian regime. Journal of Civil Society, 15(4): 285-306.
Zaloznaya, M., Reisinger, W., & Claypool, V. (2018). When civil engagement is part of the problem: Flawed anti-corruptionism in Russia and Ukraine. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 51(3): 245-255.
Zimelis, A. (2020). Corruption research: A need for an integrated approach. International Area Studies Review, 23(3): 288-306.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.