Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov.

2012

CORRUPTION: DEFINITIONS, THEORIES AND CONCEPTS

IYANDA DAVID O.
BABCOCK UNIVERSITY, ILISHAN REMO,OGUN STATE, NIGERIA

ABSTRACT
Corruption, some people believe is becoming a culture but this paper admits that it is a culture in Nigeria
and in other parts of the world as well. After all, what is culture? Culture is the way of life. By this simple
definition of culture and because corruption is found and practiced everywhere and is even entrenched
virtually in all segments of the society with many people (if not all) deeply involved in it, corruption then
is a culture. Corruption is a global devil that has devoided human intelligibility in its social context. As an
anti-social behavior and a plague that has eaten so deep into the entire fabric of the Nigerian society, it
confers undue benefits on few people contrary to legal and moral norms of the society. Prior to its
contagious and incurable infection, it undermines authorities effort to provide welfare for all citizens as
the resources to do this are in the hands or at the reach of few of the populace. This paper then examines
definitions, theories and concepts of corruption as a die-hard phenomenon that has caused terrible
retrogression in Nigerian society. The paper therefore concludes by saying that due process and fair
play are the only antidotes that can fight this monster called corruption. The fight must be a genuine one
(i.e. act what we preach and preach what we act) if Nigerians desire economic and democratic growth and
this can only be possible by a determined, blunt, firm and resolved government.

INTRODUCTION
Corruption is a common word used by both adults and children because it is found in every
aspect of Nigeria. This monster called corruption has now been nick named in most Nigerian
languages especially in the three major languages! Ndokwu (2004) says: the Igbos call it
Igbuozu, the Yorubas call it Egunje while the Hausas call it Chuachua. People no longer frown
or feel ashamed to engage in corrupt practices! Chuachua/Egunje or Igbuozu is now acceptable
and it is possible to hear someone openly complaining that there is no Chuachua, Egunje or
Igbuozu at his or her place of work and as such a person might quickly resign if he or she finds
another work where there is opportunity for Chuachua. It is as bad as that!
Corruption is a global phenomenon. It is not the exclusive preserve of any nation, race or section
of the world but transcends national boundaries and frontiers and symbolizes phenomenal
universal unwholesomeness politically, Aluko (2009) opined. This menance has led to situations
like slow movement of files in offices, police exortion of toll fees, port congestion, queues at
passport offices and petrol stations, ghost workers syndrome, election irregularities, among
others (Dike, 2005, Ihenacho, 2004, Oliyide and Odeku, 2002 and Oloja 2002 in Aluko, (2009).
Government officials further still corruptly enrich themselves by converting Government money
in their custody to their own use, force citizens to pay bribe money, and citizens also induce the
officials with bribes to get whatever they want from Government or company offices. Though
corruption is found in every society, it is very common in Nigeria, and no one seems to be free
from it either as a doer or as a victim.

37
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

Corruption Defined
Corruption is a social problem found in various degrees and forms in all but the most primitive
societies. Staats (1972) noted. Ekiyor (2005) in his broad view of corruption defined it as the
unlawful use of official power or influence by an official of the government either to enrich
himself or further his course and/or any other person at the expense of the public, in
contravention of his oath of office and/or contrary to the conventions or laws that are in force. It
is very unfortunate that this menace knows not any time nor period; it happens anytime or period
of any nations history. According to Gould and Kolb (1964) in support of the above contend
that corruption is not a characteristic of a one period in political history nor of any one
country..it is endemic in both authoritarian and party systems of government. Further still as
an evidence that the history of corruption is as old as the world, Scott (1972) is of the view that
corruption must be understood as a regular, repetitive and integral part of the operation of most
political system. Another view about corruption is that it is intentional. This view was heralded
by Brooks in (1970) who believed the corrupt official knows his duties but it is neglected or
mis-performed for reasons narrower than those which the state intends. He went further to say
the difference between a corrupt official and inefficient one is that the corrupt official must
know the better and choose the worse (but) the inefficient official does not know any better
(ibid). He further maintained that in either case the external circumstances may appear to be
closely similar, and the immediate results may be equally harmful (ibid).

Corruption still as a common phenomenon found not only in the so called developing countries
and societies, but also in the developed societies such as Europe, America, Japan and the former
Soviet Union regardless of their structural and cultural differences. Some authors have argued
that corruption is prevalent in third world countries however, evidence has shown that corruption
is even prevalent in developed countries and each country be it in developing or developed world
devices suitable method to deal with corruption. For instance a U.S Fluor a multinational
construction firm according to Minakimes (2009) was quoted to have said that:
fighting corruption and bribery, CEO Allan Boeckman helped developed a cross-
industry sharing program of best practices, along with a set of strict principles to
follow. Fluor uses a combination of an ethics hotline for reporting crime, an open
door policy to encourage managers to consult with executives for guidance,
anticorruption training sessions, a zero-tolerance policy for infractions and
overall transparency in its operations to minimize inappropriate behaviour.

The above quotation confirms that a society without corruption would not have put in place an
anti-corruption training session. This further proves that corruption does not know boundary,
culture, society and that there is no human occupation that is immunized against its practices.
Augustus Adebayo (2004) explains corruption via faulty recruitment of employees exercise in
the Nigerian Public service, he says:
one of the banes of the Nigerian Public Service is the recruitment of mediocre or totally
unsuitable candidates in preference to candidates of high merit. The reasons for this ugly
situation can be traced directly to nepotism. Corruption plays only a little part and is
generally prevalent in the recruitment of every junior employees like messengers and
clerks. In this category of recruitment, the recruiting agents are generally officials of

38
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

lower-middle rank who see an opportunity of making some money on the side by
collecting little bribes from applicants.

Though this situation is reprehensive, it might not be the heart of the matter, the selection of
unsuitable candidates that usually undermines efficiency and lowers performance in the public
service occurs in the recruitment of higher grades of staff. However in the above scenario, we see
nepotism, a dimension or form of corruption in Nigeria at work in which a special form of
favoritism is used by office holders to prefer their kinfolk and family members that may not be
qualified at the expense of candidates of high merit. This occurs as Amundse (1997) and Girling
(1997) opined, when one is exempted from the application of certain laws or regulations or given
undue preference in the allocation of scarce of resources.
Corruption we all know does not yield to easy definition, thus writers definitions have been
varied and divergent. Akinseye (2000) attempts at describing it as mother of all crimes and
identifies four forms of corruption as bribery, prebendalism, graft and nepotism. EFCC a
commission that deals with economic issue through Ngwakwe (2009) defines corruption from
economic perspective as follows:
the non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with objectives of earning wealth
illegally either individually or in a group or organized manner thereby violating existing
legislation governing the economic activities of government and its administration

From the various foregoing definitions of corruption, one can see that there is hardly consensus
on the meaning of the term. However, one thing is certain about those various definitions is that
they lack precise elements that constitute corruption. Nonetheless they all have enough indicators
as to conducts that might be judged as corrupt and the distinguishing element of such conduct is
some moral failing or depravity (Ibrahim 2003).

Conceptual Framework of Corruption

No doubt, corruption is the unethical or illegal advantages procured through official position.
Justice Mustapha Akanbi (2003), the distinguished former chairman of ICPC classified
corruption in Nigeria into three categories, these are:
I. street level corruption which describes corruption in administration as shown in day to
day experiences of the citizens in their interactions with officials.
II. business corruption that occurs among low to medium sized business with or without
active connivance of the equivalent public sector official; and
III. high level corruption, which involves huge sums of money in high power centers in
finance, public service and administration.
Petty corruption headed is highly visible, pervasive, endemic and in some cases institutionalized.
This institutionalization of corruption according to him, is possible because of the poor standard
of ethics is of course a function of other social malaise like greed. Stiglitz, J.E (2002) in his own
view, argues that corruption is systematic, a continuous cycle of deliberate initiative erected by
those in authority and beneficial to politically structured groups. This group authors market
liberalization and privatization. This emphasis emanates from ethnographic observation of
39
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

transiting economies and natural resources of dependent economies. Stiglitz further maintains
that these reforms respond to the vested interests of the corrupt elites as this was obvious
during Abacha administration in Nigeria (ibid). Stiglitz drowns special allusion to the
instrumental bureaucrats who have been compensated at the cost of nations revenues (ibid).

Although corruption is systematic Egwakhe Johnson (2007) opined that the institutional agents
extortive (extractive) corruption contexts are perfectly distinguishable and independent, thus, less
difficult to authentically specify the order of casualty or precedent between the perpetuator and
the beneficiary (ies). Bureaucratic structure gave birth to extractive corruption. Critical
observation reveals that the state or some state agents benefit most from extra-legal transactions
in the name of the state. This kind of corruption unfolds when institutional decision-makers
exploit the government power they are equipped with, to tailored and sustain their self-interest,
power, status and wealth. The agents extractive behavior unfolds towards evading the iron cage
of the law thereby instituting conditional reciprocity between the agent(s) and the law breaker.
Obasanjo (2004) as reported by Afolabi (2007) enumerated the various forms of corruption to
include fee fraud (known as 419), money laundering, unconventional and fraudulent trade
practices, misappropriation or diversion of funds, kick backs, under and over invoicing, bribery,
false declarations, abuse of office, and collection of illegal tolls. Other contextual meanings
include the impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principles, and an unauthorized use of
resources for private gain. Adigun Agbaje (2004) by way of contextualizing corruption within
the territory of public service listed such factors as pervasion of public rules and misuse of
official power for selfish motive, and the frustration of electoral process to make free and fair
election impossible. Other forms of corruption to him are the deliberate refusal to declare ones
assets on the assumption and expiration of public office and of course using ones official status
to prevent the administration of justice which is common by the executives (past and present) of
different capacities in Nigeria.
In the word of Akinyemi (2004) corruption was described as the acquisition of that
which one (as a member of society not public official alone) is not entitled. Doig (ibid) in 1996
described corruption to be any use of official position, resources or facilities for personal benefit,
or possible conflict of interest between public position and private benefit. This, of course, to
him involves offenses of misconduct in public offices and is also covered by a variety of internal
regulations.lastly El-Rufia (2003) made corruption to cover:
a wide range of social misconducts, including fraud, extortion,
embezzlement, bribery, nepotism, influence peddling, bestowering of
favours to friends, rigging of elections, abuse of public property, the
leaking of official government secret, safes of expired and defective goods
like drugs, food, electronics and spare parts to the public, etc.
To round up this conceptualization, the words of Alanamu (2009) will be useful. He says
corruption is like a disease that can cause total pathology for an organization and in relation to
society corruption can affect the economic, social, political and the moral aspect of the society as
it is the case in Nigeria.

40
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

THEORETICAL ASPECT OF CORRUPTION

One best way to look at corruption is when individuals act negates the moral principle
that guides their official obligations. Corruption thus cannot be devoided from breaching of
ethnical rules that bind the conduct of official duties. Every official position either in private or
public is guided by ethics and these ethics are there to regulate official conduct.
Several factors would make having a consensus on the causes and successful way of
combating corruption a bit problematic. Among these factors are according Agubamah (2009)
the uniqueness of each society and or country, the dynamic or changing nature of the socio
political and economic interactions within the global community and the differences in the
perception of corrupt practices by different academic disciplines.
One of the theories of corruption is the modernization theory. In the word of Huntington
1968, one of the theorist of modernization cited by Adefulu (2007) he observed that: the process
of economic and political development in modernizing societies tends to breed inequality,
political instability and corruption which may be defined simply in terms of the use of public
powers to achieve private goals.
Earnestly worked after the (1955) Bandung Conference of the Non-Aligned movement
modernization theorists explained that: the causes, scale and incidence of corruption and corrupt
practices in pre-colonial African states in terms of the logic of patrimonialism, neo
patrimonialism, prebendalism, and patro-clientelism and the main proposition common to all
these theories of cooption centers on the view that extractive corruption in African (and
elsewhere in developing countries) is one of the unsalutary consequences of grafting modern
political structure and processes on indigenous socio political structures which function on the
basis of old values and obligation (ibid).
In spite of the presumed benefits of mixed government pinpiontedlyl Sklar (2003) as
reported in Adefulu (2007) the incidence of corruption in Africa is seen as an outcome of the
behavior of public officials which deviates from the accepted norms, and which also signifies the
absence of effective political institutionalization that makes it difficult for these officials to
divorce their public roles from private ones, thus prompting them to subordinate their
institutional roles to exogenous demands.
To Adefulu (ibid) Huntingtons way of show casing the orthodox theories of corruption
simply pictures the origin of the menace by justifying corruption based on parochial reasons in
terms of political under-development and in terms of the inclinations of traditional societies to
engage in what Clapham (1985) cited by Adefulu (2007) has described as the private of gift
giving which is believed to be almost universal in patrimonial societies. As robust as the
argument of the orthodox theories of patrimonialsm e.g. Huntington, is to explain and spiral the
reason for corruption in African states Nigeria a case study of patrimonialism, that, it breeds
inequality, political instability as believed to have caused by faulty process of economic and
political development, the concept of patrimonialism failed to tell us meaningful reason about the
actual causes and prevalence of corruption. This failure prompted Western liberal nalyssts to
operationalise another related concept tagged neo patrimonialism to explain the phenomenon.
The basic features of neo-patrimonialism as noted by Clapham (1985) and still reported by
Adefulu (2007) were:

41
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

Officials hold positions in bureaucratic organization with formally defined

powers which are exercised not as a form of public services but as a form of
private property relationships of the official with other members of society fall
into patrimonial pattern of vassal and lord-lord rather than relational legal one
of subordinate superior official behavior is correspondingly devised to play a
personal status rather than to perform official functions, the relationship between
officials and their clients or underlings is one of personal subordination; state
officials treat their posts as personal fiefdom, use them to extract bribes or to
appoint relatives; subordinate cannot take official decisions without referring
them upwards because to do otherwise would be taken to mean sligting the
authority of the boss.

Some of the features mentioned above if not all of them are obviously noticeable in many
developing countries and this precisely is why western liberal scholars are quickly concluding
that neo patrimonialism, as a defining characteristic of developing states breeds corruption to
those countries. But as it could be expected such above conclusion is proned to contention as
some or most of the features of neo patrimonialism ascribed to developing nations are as well
noticeable in the developed democratic nations like North America and Europe. The theorists of
prebendalism another theory of corruption see the phenomenon as the return for loyalty from
patronage and groups within the society and for the benefit of personal gain and that of
supporters. The benefit could either be political economic or social in nature. Agubamah (2009).
Okojie (2005) quickly refer to President Mobutu Seseseko of Zaire (1965-1997), one of the
longest ruled African who turned the state into personal property and embezzled 5 billion US
dollars while in office.
Causes of corruption
The faculty of social science, University of Lagos recently organized a workshop tagged
Democracy, Good governance and Corruption in Nigeria. John Ajodele in his paper presented
says that corruption can be blamed on poverty, greed and an insatiable appetite of people to
accumulate wealth. This was reported by Onongha (2007). Greed indeed is a major helping hand
for the menace called corruption. Wood (2005) as copied by Onongha (2007) described greed as
an inappropriate attitude toward things of values built on the mistaken judgment that my well
being is tied to the sum of my possession Greed, he continue can take the form of acquisitiveness
being inordinately concerned with amassing goods. Doubtless, Onongha (ibid) goes further, this
phenomenon is evident in the live of many African leaders as they assume office. Services to
their country or community fades into the background while self serving becomes the ultimate
pursuit to which they themselves indefatigably.
Olujobi (1999) as reported by Afolabi, (2007) in attempt to state causes of corruption
categorized wealth producing resources into two broad areas namely tangible and intangible. The
former consists of man, money, materials, and machinery, while the latter are made up of time
and information. He referred to man, while citing the work of Drucker and Easton, as both
custodian of other resources, and also the only active agent of production. Conversely, man to
him is regrettably, the only active agent of thievery of other organizational resources in his
custody.

42
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

The foregoing, Afolabi (2007) continues, justifies dealing effectively with potential
problems of employee theft in an organization. Reviewing the causes of employee theft, he came
up with the followings:
a. Motivation: certain habits which predispose individuals to steal include high
personal debts, excessive gambling, peer group pressures, excessive use of
alcohol or drugs and living far beyond ones means
b. Equity: employees who are exploited by way of poor wage remuneration are
likely to steal. It can be argued however that corruption cuts across
remuneration barriers since among those who started being corrupt early in
life, are some who still find it convenient to subsidize their living through
fraudulent practices, when they attain higher socio economic positions in life.
It is also sad to note that some of the most corrupt individuals in Nigeria are
actually the very top public officers who are indeed very well remunerated.
c. Management attitude: if management encourages godfatherism in the work
place, or does not respond to crimes promptly and decisively, corruption will
thrive in the organization.
d. Societal value system: Nigerian accord a lot of respect to material wealth
regardless of how it has been acquired. Little attention is paid to morals, and it
is often said that if you cannot beat them, join them. Little attention is paid to
morals since it is generally believed that the end justifies the means. Getting a
job is not the question of merit but of connections. The few among the
citizenry who get themselves enriched through fouls means, are also always
under pressure from their friends, and relations to share out the loot thereby
perpetuating the vicious circles
RECOMMENDATION TO CORRUPTION PROBLEMS IN NIGERIA
The dangers posed by endemic corruption to the survival of Nigeria as a socio political
and economic entity as expressed in this piece, Should compel all stakeholders in Nigeria project
to devise more proactive measures to arrest the scourge. Despite the seemingly failure of the
institutional approach to combat corruption as it is currently experienced in the country
Animashaun (2007) is of opinion that these institutional approaches (EFFC, ICPC, etc) are still
the most effective instruments in controlling corruption if they are properly applied without
selective, judgment.

To win the war on corruption, Aluko (2009) Obasanjos slogan of no sacred cows
should be put into maximum use by prosecuting all the known corrupt political heavy-weights
in the society, because they are the major contributors to making the national corruption law
inoperable. Thus, corruption which is currently a high profile issue in Nigeria has created a
dangerous mixture of celebrity and corruption in the society.

The failure of the institutional approach in Nigeria cannot be located in the approach
itself but in its operations by state leadership whose vested interests have sabotaged the
effectiveness of the approach. For the institutional approach to be effective to combat corruption,
this chapter will consider three issues as identified by Diamond (1999) as found in Animashaun
(2007). First a system must be put in place for monitoring official conduct and exposing
wrongdoing. Two a credible system be built for assessing charges for wrongdoings and for

43
 Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

punishing convicted wrongdoers and the third is building a framework for insulating institutions
of watchdog, exposure and punishment from the control and manipulation of the very state actors
they are meant to monitor .

REFERENCE
Adefulu A. Razaa Neo Patrimonialism the modern Africans state and corruptions syndrome. A
theoretical and Emprical consideration in corruption and the challenge of human
development (2007) Babcock University Press: School of management and social sciences.
Afolabi, Gabriel K, Contextual perceptions of corruption in contemporary Nigeria, (2007) in
corruption and the challenge of Human Development: a publication of the program on policy,
Conflict and Strategic studies, School of Management and Social Science: Babcock
University Press Ltd.
Afolabi, Gabriel K, contextual perceptions of corruption in contemporary Nigeria( 2007)
Agbaje, Adigun (2004): Corruption, Accountability and Good governance: Reflections on
governance in Nigeria Fourth Republic 1999-2003 International Review of Politics and
Development, vol. 2, No. 2, June.
Agubamah, Edgar corruption in civilian and military regimes in Nigeria: a comparative anhisis in
Anti-corruption reforms in Nigeria since (1999): issues, challenges and the way forward
IFRA special research issues, vol. 3 2009 IFRA. Ibadan
Akanbi, Mustapha, (2004b) Current Policy Initiatives and Framework for combating Coruption
, in Alli, W.O (2007)ed, Ethical Crisis as Obstacle to Democatic governance in Nigeria: A
case study of the Fourth Republic, p.248.
Akinseye George, Y. (2000) Legal System, Corruption and Governance in Nigeria, Lagos: New
century law publisher limited,.
Akinyemi, B. corruption: A battle Nigerian must win this day, August 22, p 22. 2004
Alanamu, Ayinla Saadu, (2009): The role of Religions in combating corruption in Nigeria 2009 is
Anti corruption reforms in Nigeria since 1999: issues challenges and the way forward, IFRA
special case arch issues, vol. 3,
Aluko, Yetunde A. (2009): corruption in Nigeria: concept and Demission in Anti corruption
Reforms in Nigeria since 1999: issues, challenges and the way forward IFRA special
Resources issues, vol. 3,.
Amundsen, I. (2009) In search of counter Hegemony: State Civil society in the struggle for
Democracy in African 1997 in corruption in Nigeria; Concept and Dimensions by Aluko.
Yetunde A.
Animashaun, Mojeed Adekunle, Corruption and Public Confidence in state leadership: A study of
Nigeria Fourth Republic, (2007) in Corruption and the Challenge of Human Development
School of Management and Social Science: Babcock University
Augustines, Adebayo, (2004) Principles and Practice of Public Administration in Nigeria 2nd
Edition, Lagos, Spectrum Books Limited, pp. 169-170
Brooks, C Robert, (1970) Apologies for Political Corruption, in Arnold J. Heldenheimered,
Political Corruption, Reading in Comparative Political Analysis, New York, Holt Rhinehart
and Winston, Inc.,.

44
 Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

Doig, A. from Lynskey to Nolan (2009): the corruption of British politics and public services
journal of law and society vol. 23 pp 36-56, 1996 as found in Alanamu, Ayinla saadu. The
role of religions in cohabiting corruption Nigeria
Egwakhe, Johnson A, An Empirical insight into the Impact of Corruption on Nigerian economy
from (1990-2003, 2007), in corruption and the Challenge of Human Development: A
publication of the program on Policy conflict and strategic studies Babcock University,
School of Management and Social Science: Babcock University Press Ltd.
Ekiyor, H.A 2009 corruption in Local Government Administration: An Historical summary as
found in Local Government Administration in Nigeria: Old and New Vision,
El-Rufai, N.A (2003): Is liberal Democracy Encouraging corruption and corrupt practices: The
privatization process in Nigeria the Nigerian social scientist. Vol. 6, No 2,
Gould, J and Kolb, W. L edsog, (1964): A Dictionary of Social Science, Macmillan Publishing
company, New York,
Ibrahim, J. September (2003) Corruption in Nigeria: Transition, Persistence and Continuity,
The Nigerian Social Scientist, Vol. 6, No. 2..
Kimes, Mina, (2009) Fluors Corporate Crime Fighter, Fortune, February 16,
Ndokwu, J.N (May 26, 2004): Corruption, corrupt practices and Honest leadership in Nigeria.
http:/www.corruption,newscorrupt.org/printer
Ngwakwe, Ezenwa C. (2009) An analysis of Jurisdiction tuitions in Nigeria 2009 in Anti
corruption reforms in Nigeria since 1999: Issues, Challenges and the way forward, IFRA
special Research Issues, Vol. 3,
Okojie P. et al (2005) corruption and crisis of development in Nigeria paper presented at a
conference on redesigning the state Manchester UK, Nov.
Onongha, Kelvin Intersections of corruption and christain Ethics: towards a solution to A
national problem (2007) in corruption and the challenge of human development. A
publication by school of management and social science, Babcock University
Scott, C. Jamer, (1972) Comparative Political Corruption, New Jassey, Prentice Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs,.
Stauts, J. Steven, (1972): Corruption in the soviet system problems of communism,
Stiglitz J.E Globalisation and its discontents,( 2002), W.W Norton and Company: New York

45