“Non-Corrupt Government”: Less Than Good, More Than Impartial

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The question usually asked where corruption is academically considered is what do we mean by the

term and what are the consequences of applying it as a particular accusation . In this article, the

question is reversed. Whatever we mean by corruption, what is a non-corrupt government? vital as it is,

the question is rarely (if at all) raised, despite the fact that it is of immense importance to all who try to

conduct anti-corruption efforts that are not simply political attacks and campaign slogans. No less

significant is that the article looks at the question through the lens of political theory. There is no

specific theorist who discussed the question “squarely “, but quite a few supply us with components of

what is a combined here into an answer of significance. I urge publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and support for the publication of the text. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend publication.  This is a piece that focuses on what we so often neglect when we demand the purification of government from corruption.  What is the system we strive for?  The inquiry relies heavily on theorists who had something to say on the subject, but combines them into a surprising and useful response.  Whether or not one agrees with it, it is an approach that should have been taken long ago.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and support for the publication of the text. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I read and re-read this article multiple times to ensure that I was not at fault in failing to identify a single clear argument, but finally I could only conclude that it was the author that had not presented a sustained thesis throughout. While the paper touched on a range of key issues relating to our understanding of corruption – and its concomitant, non-corruption – I found the paper lacking in coherence and focus on a single argument.

The difficulties I found with the article include:

The author states parenthetically (in a footnote, to be precise) that he/she is focused solely on “political corruption”, as distinct from “corruption in general”, yet completely ignored the need to define what he/she meant by political corruption and how the distinction was to be understood. This is a major issue in the literature, with understandings of political corruption being contested and often confused. So if the author intended to mark out a particular territory in this debate, he/she needed to take a defined position – particularly since the paper is focused on definitional and conceptual issues about corruption. In any case, the body of the paper seems in fact to be focused on general corruption, rather than a separate analytical category of “political corruption”.

A major stated premise of the paper is that we should move away from “abstract categories such as good governance or integrity”, which may be a useful perspective on the problem. Yet the paper seems only to replace those abstract categories with other equally abstract or morally-based concepts such as reasonableness, impartiality and accountability.

The lack of coherence in the paper is related to the fact that, while the introduction states that the author is seeking to answer the question of what “non-corrupt government” would look like, the body of the text becomes entangled in a series of other questions. These are undoubtedly related to the broad theme of corruption, but serve only to confuse the reader about what the main argument is. These other issues include the above-mentioned matter of “non-abstract” definitions of corruption, what a starting point for a fight against corruption should be, long discursive reviews of the literature on historical and current understandings of ethics and corruption (including an anachronistic assertion about Aristotle’s view on the middle class), and a diversion into a short discussion about corruption in developed countries.

Finally, the concluding paragraphs only really return to the original problem posited in the introduction in the final couple of sentences. The majority of the concluding section is devoted to the above-mentioned diversionary discussion about developed countries and NPM. This only contributes to the overall impression of a lack of coherence and focus. Finally, the paper concludes with abstract (and even more fuzzy) concepts such as “reasonableness” and “fairness”.

On the positive side, I found the distinction between the inputs and outputs of government policies and administrative practices a useful and potentially productive approach. Indeed, if there were more discussion in the literature about the often-neglected input side of policy-making we could shed more light on the particular problem of political corruption and state-capture that the author correctly identifies as being a major feature of corruption in developed countries. The corruption of policy by powerful corporate interests in developed countries is often obscured by the tendency to focus on corruption in developing countries. But this is not defined by the author as the focus of the paper. Thus, perhaps, a more fruitful project for the author might be to explore this useful analytical tool of “inputs and outputs” as a way of highlighting particular features of corruption in developed countries.

The English expression in the paper was adequate to the task. I was aware of some jarring cases of grammatical errors, but did not make a note of them because I was preoccupied with my efforts to discern the paper's overall thesis. One example I recall was "Administration were" on line 419. I also question the (inconsistent) capitalisation of "Administration" and, on one occasion, "Public Administration" which seems unnecessary and perhaps indicative of reification in the author's thinking.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and support for the publication of the text. I will try to respond to your interesting views and, as you will see in the text, I have introduced some reforms which are intended to address your valuable criticisms. 

A.- Your review: "While the paper touched on a range of key issues relating to our understanding of corruption – and its concomitant, non-corruption – I found the paper lacking in coherence and focus on a single argument" .

My answer: The article is based on the impossibility of a single argument to defend such a complex issue. The "only argument" was Bo Rothstein's option, and the text tries to define its limits. On the other hand, it does not go to the extreme of presenting a long list of arguments that would lead to clear inconsistencies.

B.- Your review: The author states parenthetically (in a footnote, to be precise) that he/she is focused solely on “political corruption”, as distinct from “corruption in general”, yet completely ignored the need to define what he/she meant by political corruption and how the distinction was to be understood. This is a major issue in the literature, with understandings of political corruption being contested and often confused. So if the author intended to mark out a particular territory in this debate, he/she needed to take a defined position – particularly since the paper is focused on definitional and conceptual issues about corruption. In any case, the body of the paper seems in fact to be focused on general corruption, rather than a separate analytical category of “political corruption”.

My answer: What I wanted to emphasize was that it was corruption in the public sector, so I changed the concept from political corruption to public corruption. I left out corruption between private individuals. There is nothing in the body of the paper about private-to-private corruption.

C.- Your review: A major stated premise of the paper is that we should move away from “abstract categories such as good governance or integrity”, which may be a useful perspective on the problem. Yet the paper seems only to replace those abstract categories with other equally abstract or morally-based concepts such as reasonableness, impartiality and accountability.

My answer: There is a fundamental difference between the two types of concept. The first have been used as synonyms for non-corrupt government; the other concepts, however abstract, are characteristics/principles of non-corrupt government, not synonyms for such government.

D.- The lack of coherence in the paper is related to the fact that, while the introduction states that the author is seeking to answer the question of what “non-corrupt government” would look like, the body of the text becomes entangled in a series of other questions.

My answer: What we have tried to follow at the beginning of the text is something essential in political theory: a method of conceptual clarification. We have identified key concepts in relation to the topic under study, attempted to define and clarify them, in order to distinguish, through comparison, the essence of the final concept selected: non-corrupt government.

From there, the concept was analyzed, which involved breaking it down into its constituent parts, understanding its different dimensions and exploring its implications. In relation to the incorporation of literature reviews on the historical and philosophical bases, the aim is to understand the historical and philosophical context in which the concept emerged, which I believe will ultimately help in understanding the meaning and evolution of the concept over time.

We have removed the reference to Aristotle in case it could be misinterpreted.

E.- Your review: Finally, the concluding paragraphs only really return to the original problem posited in the introduction in the final couple of sentences. The majority of the concluding section is devoted to the above-mentioned diversionary discussion about developed countries and NPM. This only contributes to the overall impression of a lack of coherence and focus. Finally, the paper concludes with abstract (and even more fuzzy) concepts such as “reasonableness” and “fairness”.

My answer:  Although certain paragraphs could be deleted, we wanted to make it clear that the concept of non-corrupt government is not context-dependent, as it can be applied to all types of corruption syndromes. Both in developing countries with systemic corruption and in developed countries with so-called "legal corruption".

Similarly, the introduction of the concept of NPM could be avoided if it causes confusion, but it is used for an example that allows us to understand the usefulness of the concept generated in the text. 

In fact, the concept of fairness was wrongly introduced instead of impartiality, which may have caused confusion. Thank you for discovering it. It has been changed. The four principles that form the basis of a non-corrupt government are clearly defined throughout the text and are the ones that give coherence to the path taken. The causal link between them, around the distinction between inputs and outputs, is what gives coherence to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf