Abstract
AbstractToo often, the catchphrase “systemic corruption” leads to political and normative statements usually expressing its strict rejection and blaming the actors engaging in it. But despite decades of fighting systemic corruption, the world map of corruption is still red to dark red in many countries. We can keep complaining how bad this is. Scientists, and activists are telling us a lot about the negative consequences of systemic corruption. And we do not deny the negative consequences. But aren’t there any positive consequences, and not only for those who enrich themselves personally in a criminal way? As sociologists, however, we are used to ask ourselves also the other way around. If systemic corruption is so long lasting, what is the productivity, indeed functionality, of systemic corruption for a given society?
Publisher
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
Reference63 articles.
1. Allison, K. R., & Bussey, K. (2016). Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of the literature on witnesses’ responses to cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 183–194.
2. Ceva, E., & Radoilska, L. (2018). Responsibility for reason-giving: The case of individual tainted reasoning in systemic corruption. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21, 789–809.
3. Christianson, M. M. (2015). Bystander Effect of Workplace Bullying, Perceived Organizational Support, and Work Engagement. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 1685.
4. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press.
5. Coyne, I., Gopaul, A. M., Campbell, M., et al. (2019). Bystander responses to bullying at work: The role of mode, type and relationship to target. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 813–827.