Corruption as a social phenomenon in the measurement of sociological analysis

Keywords: corruption, social practice, corruption practice, social action, social interaction, social exchange, habitualization, life world


The article deals with the phenomenon of corruption as a social phenomenon in the measurement of classical and contemporary sociological theories. In the context of the structural-functional approach, corruption practices have meaning only in the structural interdependence, in that, despite the variety of forms of manifestation, they are invariant in relation to the societal level. In the understanding of corruption practices, two things are important: the lack of institutional resources and the mutual provision of services. Considering that corrupt practices operate in a society at the level of group interaction, structuralists come to the conclusion that it is necessary to close and concentrate research efforts on the consideration of the activities of state structures characterized as structures of closed action. As a result, representatives of the classical sociological thought (E. Durkheim, M. Weber, T. Parsons, R. Merton), as advocates of the discussion of corruption as differences between socially acceptable goals and acceptable means of their achievement, define corruption as a practice with motives and quite legitimate goals, and use legal means of implementation for this. A meaningful theoretical and methodological approach in sociology for understanding corruption is the theory of social interaction, within which the scientific value is the theory of social exchange of J. Humans, symbolic interactionism (Dzh. Med, G. Blumer), dramatic approach of I. Hoffman. It is found out that in theories of social interaction corruption and corrupt relations are considered as: relations of social exchange with rewards and losses; as an interpretation of the subjects of the corruption relations of symbols and values transmitted by partners, forecasting of possibilities of mutual influence and definition of a situation of interaction; as a corruption relationship between social microforms, in which some kind of activity is carried out from the point of view of managing the created impressions and determining the situation. It is determined that the non-classical sociological tradition (P. Burdier, J. Gabermas, E. Guides) makes research emphasis on revealing the subject dimension of corruption. The need for a corrupt act is due to the limited resources of the subject and the inability to overcome such limitations in the framework of existing generally accepted norms. The choice of the subject of corruption behavior is a form of risk behavior as a result of low confidence in social institutions, as well as inadequate interpersonal trust of the client towards the subjects of the normative system that generates corruption. Among the contemporary sociological approaches to explaining the phenomenon of corruption, an idealistic-philosophical approach, a revisionist school of corruption analysis and market-centric approaches are highlighted.


1. Bol’shoj tolkovyj sociologicheskij slovar’ [Great intelligent sociological dictionary] (1999). Moscow (in Russian).
2. Burd’e, P. (2001). Prakticheskij smysl [Practical sense]. SPb: Aletejja. [in Russian].
3. Voljans’ka, O.V. (2010). Fenomen korupcii’ u fokusi sociologichnogo dyskursu [The phenomenon of corruption in the focus of sociological discourse]. Visnyk Nacional’noi’ jurydychnoi’ akademii’ Ukrai’ny imeni Jaroslava Mudrogo, 4, 206-212. [in Ukrainian].
4. Giddens, Je. (2005). Ustroenie obshhestva: Ocherk teorii strukturacii [Organization of the Society: An Essay on Structure Theory]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt. [in Russian].
5. Gofman, I. (2000). Prezentacija sebe inshym v povsjakdennomu zhytti [Presentation to others in everyday life]. Kyiv: Kanon-Pres-C. [in Ukrainian].
6. Djurkgejm, Je. (1991). O razdelenii obshhestvennogo truda. Metod sociologii [About the division of social labor. Method of sociology.]. Moskva: Nauka. [in Russian].
7. Makarova, M.N., & Vahrushev, R.V. (2012). Korrupcija kak predmet sociologicheskogo analiza [Corruption as a subject of sociological analysis]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta , 3, 53-60. [in Russian].
8. Merton, R. (1992). Social’naja struktura i anomija [Social structure and anomy]. Sociologicheskie issledovanija, 4, 91-96. [in Russian].
9. Merton, R. (2006). Social’naja teorija i social’naja struktura [Social theory and social structure]. Moskva: AKT.
10. Mid, J. G. Internalizirovannye drugie i samost’ [Internationalized others and self]. Amerikanskaja sociologicheskaja mysl’: Teksty (pp. 224-258). Moscow: MGU.
11. Parsons, T. (2000). Struktura social’nogo dejstvija [The structure of social action]. Moskva: Akademicheskij proekt. [in Russian].
12. Ritcer, J. (2002). Sovremennye sociologicheskie teorii [Modern sociological theories]. St. Petersburg.: Piter. [in Russian].
13. Rouz-Akkerman, S. (2003). Korrupcija i gosudarstvo: Prichiny, sledstvija, reformy [Corruption and the State: Reasons, Consequences, Reforms]. Moskva: Logos. [in Russian].
14. Tomas, U. (1999). Opredelenie situacii [Definition of the situation]. Chelovek i obshhestvo. Hrestomatija (pp. 24-28). Kiev: In-t sociologii NAN Ukrainy. [in Russian].
15. Upravlenie obshhestvennymi otnoshenijami [Public relations management]. (2005). Moscow: Izd-vo RAGS. [in Russian].
16. Shirokov, F.I. (2007). Sociologija: teorija i metody: Uchebnik [Sociology: Theory and Methods]. Moscow: Jekzamen. [in Russian].
17. Deflem, M. (1995). Corruption, Law and Justice: a conceptual clarification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 243-258.
18. Friedrich, C.J. (1972). The Pathology of Politics: Violence, Betrayal, Corruption, Secrecy, and Propaganda. N.Y. : Harper & Row.
How to Cite
Chumachenko, D. S. (2018). Corruption as a social phenomenon in the measurement of sociological analysis. Grani, 21(2), 37-43.