Corruption isn’t just about shady backroom deals or greedy officials, it’s often a reflection of the social norms that govern a society. The paper “Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver” (Kubbe et al., 2024) explores how corruption becomes embedded in daily life through shared expectations, and how shifting those expectations is essential for meaningful reform.
Understanding Corruption Through a Social Lens
Rather than viewing corruption as an individual moral failing or purely a legal issue, this article emphasizes how corruption can be sustained by social norms–the informal rules that guide how people behave. In some societies, corrupt practices like bribery, nepotism, or embezzlement are not only tolerated but expected.
This matters because even when anti-corruption laws exist, they can fail if people continue to act corruptly based on what they believe others will do. The risk of being punished is often outweighed by the risk of being excluded from social or professional circles if one doesn’t participate.
Two Types of Corruption Norms
The authors identify two main types of norms that support corruption:
1. Descriptive norms – What people believe others do. For instance, “Everyone pays bribes to get permits.”
2. Injunctive norms – What people believe others expect them to do. For example, “If I don’t hire my cousin, my family will think I’m disloyal.”
These norms are powerful. When corrupt acts become normalized through them, individuals often feel trapped, even if they personally oppose corruption.
Coordination and Compliance
One of the paper’s most compelling insights is that corruption is a coordination problem. People conform to corrupt practices not necessarily because they want to, but because they expect others to do so, and deviating would result in social or professional costs. This leads to pluralistic ignorance, where many individuals privately disapprove of corruption but believe they are alone in that view. As a result, they act in line with what they think others expect–perpetuating the problem. This also explains why legal or institutional reforms often fall flat. If the social expectation remains unchanged, people will find ways to navigate around new rules.
How Norms Evolve and How They Can Be Changed
While social norms are sticky, they’re not unchangeable. The article outlines several ways in which norm change can occur:
– Leadership and Role Models: Prominent figures who act against corruption can shift perceptions of what is acceptable. When these leaders are perceived as credible and courageous, they can encourage others to follow suit.
– Collective Action and Whistleblowing: When people realize they’re not alone in wanting to resist corruption, they may begin to act differently. Movements that highlight collective opposition, such as citizen protests or media exposés, can help break the illusion of consensus.
– Reframing and Education: Changing the way corruption is discussed (e.g., portraying it as unfair or shameful rather than necessary) can shift both descriptive and injunctive norms. Education campaigns that highlight the real costs of corruption, like poor healthcare or crumbling infrastructure, can make its consequences tangible.
– Incentivizing New Behavior: Programs that reward integrity (rather than just punish corruption) can help build new patterns. For example, awarding public recognition or even financial incentives to officials who resist bribery can create new expectations.
The Role of Institutions and Their Limits
The paper doesn’t dismiss the role of formal institutions (laws, enforcement agencies, etc.), but it critiques approaches that focus solely on top-down reforms. Anti-corruption commissions, for example, may have limited effect if the broader culture still tolerates or encourages corrupt behavior.
However, when institutions align with evolving social norms, they can become powerful tools for change. For example, a transparent hiring system is more likely to be respected and upheld when people no longer believe nepotism is necessary to get ahead.
Policy Implications
A central takeaway from this research is that anti-corruption strategies must go beyond punishment. Efforts should focus on changing social expectations. This involves identifying and targeting key groups, such as public officials, business leaders, or youth, who can become norm entrepreneurs and influence broader behavior.
Policy efforts can include:
– Public information campaigns that reshape perceptions.
– Media coverage that celebrates integrity and exposes abuses.
– Institutional reforms that signal a real commitment to fairness (not just token measures).
– Building safe channels for whistleblowing and citizen feedback.
Importantly, the authors emphasize the context-specific nature of social norms. What works in one country or sector may not apply in another. This means that anti-corruption interventions must be grounded in local realities, not imported wholesale from other settings.
Conclusion: A New Way to Think About Corruption
This article challenges us to think differently about why corruption persists. It’s not always about bad people or weak institutions, it’s about the social fabric that allows corrupt practices to flourish. By understanding and addressing the norms that sustain corruption, we can craft smarter, more effective strategies for change.
Shifting norms may not be fast or easy, but as the paper shows, it’s often the missing piece in the fight for cleaner, fairer societies.
This blog post is based on Ina Kubbe, Claudia Baez-Camargo, and Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church’s article “Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver” in the Annual Review of Political Science.
Leave a Reply