How “Rational” Is Urban Public Corruption?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

The author should be commended for taking the initiative to address an important topic. This is a critical area of study with the potential to contribute meaningfully to both academic discussions and practical policymaking.

The article provides a broad analysis of urban corruption, integrating historical and cultural dimensions. The exploration of non-rational and social elements of corruption in dense urban settings is a valuable contribution to the literature. However, despite this commendable effort, the paper falls short in several respects:

• The abstract lacks a clear outline of the study's objectives, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Statements like "Public corruption has long been a scourge for city governments" are overly broad and add little value.
• The “Current - and speculative - UN estimates of the costs of corruption of all forms amount to 5% of global GDP” is presented as fact, yet no citation is provided for the source of this statistic.
• The introduction does not effectively highlight the gap in the existing literature or demonstrate the contribution of the study.
• The anecdote about George Washington Plunkitt and his association with Tammany Hall is presented without proper attribution. The author fails to reference this work.
• The historical narrative and critique of rational models provide a clear framework, but the transitions between sections could be smoother.
• The paper fails to make a significant contribution to the field. It rehashes existing theories and frameworks without adding meaningful new insights or advancing the discourse.
• While it mentions non-rational aspects of corruption, these ideas remain underdeveloped and poorly integrated with urban-specific contexts.

• The paper lacks scientific rigour. It does not offer a systematic methodology or robust analytical framework to support its claims. For example, the "exploratory narrative review" approach is used as a catch-all term to avoid methodological precision. It neither adheres to systematic review protocols nor provides clarity on the literature selection process.
• The reliance on secondary and perceptual data (e.g., Transparency International indices) without critical engagement undermines the credibility of its claims.
• Some generalisations (e.g., corruption being useful in transitions) lack nuanced support and could mislead readers if taken out of context.

• While the paper includes a large number of references, many are outdated, making the work appear disconnected from contemporary scholarship on corruption and urban governance.
• This lack of geographical diversity reduces the paper’s relevance in understanding global urban governance challenges.
• Sentences are often long and complex, which may hinder comprehension for readers less familiar with the subject matter.
• Some jargon (e.g., "principal-agent coordination problem," "atomistic corruption") could be clarified for a broader audience.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author should be commended for taking the initiative to address an important topic. This is a critical area of study with the potential to contribute meaningfully to both academic discussions and practical policymaking.

Response 1: The commendation is much appreciated.

Comment 2: The article provides a broad analysis of urban corruption, integrating historical and cultural dimensions. The exploration of non-rational and social elements of corruption in dense urban settings is a valuable contribution to the literature. However, despite this commendable effort, the paper falls short in several respects:

Response 2: The affirmation is appreciated. The author very much agrees with the listed shortcomings of the initial draft and has addressed these in extensive revisions, described point-by-point. Overall the paper now has 13 detailed sections, has been completely rewritten and restructured (although the original text is still there, but revised and much augmented), and there are now twice as many references cited.

Comment 3: The abstract lacks a clear outline of the study's objectives, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Statements like "Public corruption has long been a scourge for city governments" are overly broad and add little value.

Response 3: The abstract has been completely rewritten to lay out the precise aims, methods and conclusions of the study.

Comment 4: The “Current - and speculative - UN estimates of the costs of corruption of all forms amount to 5% of global GDP” is presented as fact, yet no citation is provided for the source of this statistic.

Response 4: This instance now has a proper citation added (in this case the actual number was ultimately drawn from the International Chamber of Commerce) and additional data, with relevant citations, has also been added in this particular section, and elsewhere.

Comment 5: The introduction does not effectively highlight the gap in the existing literature or demonstrate the contribution of the study.

Response 5: This is a very fair point. This particular section has not been heavily revised, but the progression of material following it has been. Section 3 critically analyzes existing data and its conceptual limitations and implicit assumptions, followed by Section 4 that details the "consensus" definition of urban public corruption. Section 5, entirely new, discusses the centrality of economic "rent" to this understanding; Section 6 details how "rent" and urban development and corruption go together causally; Section 7 discusses behavioral extensions to the consensus model and what they do -- and do not -- accomplish - empirically and theoretically; Section 8 details the evolving conceptions of the social dimensions of urban corruption; Section 9 describes the interaction between urban corruption and the global economy; Sections 10-12 detail the changes wrought in urban corruption during the transitions of Decolonization and the end of the Cold War, with a full section on India's unique experience; Section 13 contains detailed conclusions drawn from all this.

Comment 6: The anecdote about George Washington Plunkitt and his association with Tammany Hall is presented without proper attribution. The author fails to reference this work.

Response 6: Both the anecdote and the history of Tammany Hall are now separately and explicitly referenced.

Comment 7: The historical narrative and critique of rational models provide a clear framework, but the transitions between sections could be smoother.

Response 7: This is a very apropos comment. The transitions have been improved both within sections and by the addition of clearly focused and sequential additional sections.

Comment 8: The paper fails to make a significant contribution to the field. It rehashes existing theories and frameworks without adding meaningful new insights or advancing the discourse.

Response 8: The initial draft was indeed faulty in this respect. However the redraft does, it is believed, substantially expand and deepen the discussion, fitting it well into the existing literature and making it a true advancement of current discourses, drawn closely from those discourses.

Comment 9: While it mentions non-rational aspects of corruption, these ideas remain underdeveloped and poorly integrated with urban-specific contexts.

Response 9: The conclusions section is vastly expanded to draw out the distinctions between "Full Rational Actor" models in which actors are completely rational, atomistic and maximizing, and those in which they are only partially so in one or more such respects. These theoretical conceptions are closely tied to examples of urban corruption in different countries, at different times.

Comment 10: The paper lacks scientific rigour. It does not offer a systematic methodology or robust analytical framework to support its claims. For example, the "exploratory narrative review" approach is used as a catch-all term to avoid methodological precision. It neither adheres to systematic review protocols nor provides clarity on the literature selection process.

Response 10: The initial draft was sketchy on method and incomplete in application. This has been corrected, it is believed, by a substantial addition of historical example, analysis and literature discussion. The method section itself has now been augmented to discuss in detail historical narrative analysis, and the specific type employed here. Granted, though, the primary analysis remains largely discursive and conceptual, which the author feels is valid and now well executed; but such methods may not be acceptable to all researchers.

Comment 11: The reliance on secondary and perceptual data (e.g., Transparency International indices) without critical engagement undermines the credibility of its claims.

Response 11: The data section has been substantially revised to clarify sources and add a full discussion of the limits of existing date, and their implicit biases, has been added.

Comment 12: Some generalisations (e.g., corruption being useful in transitions) lack nuanced support and could mislead readers if taken out of context.

Response 12: The initial draft was, indeed, underdeveloped in this respect. All generalizations, have now substantial historical, contemporary and theoretical discussions attached to them, and three new sections (as noted above) have been added to discussion transitions and corruption.

Response 13: While the paper includes a large number of references, many are outdated, making the work appear disconnected from contemporary scholarship on corruption and urban governance.

The references have been almost doubled with substantial additions of references since 2015 included.

Comment 14: This lack of geographical diversity reduces the paper’s relevance in understanding global urban governance challenges.

Response 14: The paper now discusses, in detail, cities across the global "South".

Comment 15:Sentences are often long and complex, which may hinder comprehension for readers less familiar with the subject matter.

Response 15: The text has been thoroughly edited and overly long sentences broken into two or more in most cases.

Comment 16: Some jargon (e.g., "principal-agent coordination problem," "atomistic corruption") could be clarified for a broader audience.

Response 16: Some jargon is unavoidable but all it has now been briefly defined after its first use and developed more fully and clearly as applicable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article How "rational" is corruption in urban public urban government? is a valuable contribution to understanding the complexity of the phenomenon of urban corruption, providing a detailed analysis of rational and non-rational dynamics, but its quality can be improved by deepening the theoretical connections, clarifying the methodology and integrating more clearly defined practical implications for urban governance:

1. The introduction should include a more explicit statement of the gaps in the existing literature, followed by a convincing justification of the relevance of the topic.

2. The methodological section may benefit from a clarification of the limitations of the critical narrative approach and a justification for its choice.

3. The Current Extent of Urban Public Corruption. This section could benefit from a more critical integration of the limitations of the data used.

4. Expanding the discussion of the ethical and political implications of urban corruption may add depth to the analysis.

5. Conclusions can be expanded to emphasize the practical implications of the research and future directions.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The article How "rational" is corruption in urban public urban government? is a valuable contribution to understanding the complexity of the phenomenon of urban corruption, providing a detailed analysis of rational and non-rational dynamics, but its quality can be improved by deepening the theoretical connections, clarifying the methodology and integrating more clearly defined practical implications for urban governance:

Response 1: The author very much appreciates the affirmation and is in agreement with the critique. The shortcomings of the initial draft have been addressed in extensive revisions, described below. Overall the paper now has 13 detailed sections, has been completely rewritten and restructured (although the original text is still there, but revised and much augmented), and there are now twice as many references cited.

Comment 2: The introduction should include a more explicit statement of the gaps in the existing literature, followed by a convincing justification of the relevance of the topic.

Response 2: This particular section has not been heavily revised, but the progression of material following it has been. Section 3 critically analyzes existing data and its conceptual limitations and implicit assumptions, followed by Section 4 that details the "consensus" definition of urban public corruption. Section 5, entirely new, discusses the centrality of economic "rent" to this understanding; Section 6 details how "rent" and urban development and corruption go together causally; Section 7 discusses behavioral extensions to the consensus model and what they do -- and do not -- accomplish - empirically and theoretically; Section 8 details the evolving conceptions of the social dimensions of urban corruption; Section 9 describes the interaction between urban corruption and the global economy; Sections 10-12 detail the changes wrought in urban corruption during the transitions of Decolonization and the end of the Cold War, with a full section on India's unique experience; Section 13 contains detailed conclusions drawn from all this.

Comment 3: The methodological section may benefit from a clarification of the limitations of the critical narrative approach and a justification for its choice.

Response 3: The initial draft was sketchy on method and incomplete in application. This has been corrected, it is believed, by a substantial addition of historical example, analysis and literature discussion. The method section itself has now been augmented to discuss in detail historical narrative analysis, and the specific type employed here.

Comment 4. The Current Extent of Urban Public Corruption. This section could benefit from a more critical integration of the limitations of the data used.

Response 4: The data section has been substantially revised to clarify sources and add a full discussion of the limits of existing date, and their implicit biases, has been added.

Comment 5: Expanding the discussion of the ethical and political implications of urban corruption may add depth to the analysis.

Response 5: These are excellent points. I discuss both ethical and policy implications in a thoroughly revised conclusions section (see Response 6) and also at appropriate points elsewhere in the paper.

Comment 6: Conclusions can be expanded to emphasize the practical implications of the research and future directions.

Response 6: The conclusions section is vastly expanded to draw out the distinctions between "Full Rational Actor" models in which actors are completely rational, atomistic and maximizing, and those in which they are only partially so in one or more such respects. These theoretical conceptions are closely tied to examples of urban corruption in different countries, at different times.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my comments and suggestions have been addressed.