Anti-Corruption Research in Southeast Europe: A Comparative Assessment of Global and Regional Literature

Alfirević, Nikša; Pavić, Ivan; Piplica, Damir; Rendulić, Darko

doi:10.3390/world5030039

Open AccessArticle

Anti-Corruption Research in Southeast Europe: A Comparative Assessment of Global and Regional Literature

¹

Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia

²

Hotel Management and Gastronomy Study, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia

³

University Department of Forensic Science, University of Split, Ruđera Boškovića 31, 21000 Split, Croatia

⁴

Department for Management, Karlovac University of Applied Sciences, Trg Josipa Jurja Strossmayera 9, 47000 Karlovac, Croatia

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

World 2024, 5(3), 751-768; https://doi.org/10.3390/world5030039

Submission received: 1 August 2024 / Revised: 4 September 2024 / Accepted: 14 September 2024 / Published: 18 September 2024

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

:

This paper analyzes anti-corruption research and the body of knowledge produced by researchers in Southeast Europe (SEE). It compares it to the extant global anti-corruption literature. We consider all available scientific outputs from the SEE region, indexed by the Elsevier Scopus bibliometric database, and employ the Elsevier SciVal software solution to analyze the productivity and impact of the regional anti-corruption research. We also consider the influence of international cooperation on regional scientific productivity and its impact. The bibliometric comparison of the global and regional research and the authors’ qualitative assessment of these differences are performed. We also identify the implications and future research priorities.

Keywords:

anti-corruption research; comparative bibliometric analysis; regional literature; Southeast Europe (SEE); global literature

1. Introduction

Corruption is commonly defined as the misuse of given trust for personal gain. Since the core principle of democracy is trust, corruption erodes its base and threatens socio-economic development. These negative consequences are significant in developing and transition economies, particularly in Southeast Europe (SEE). This paper intends to provide a bibliometric analysis of anti-corruption research within this region, considering publications in the 2017 to 2022 period. We analyze the scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration patterns, seeking to identify key contributors, research trends, and the comprehensive impact of regional anti-corruption research. Our findings provide valuable information for policymakers, academics, and practitioners involved in anti-corruption efforts.

2. Theoretical Background

The issue of corruption is being increasingly studied by researchers from various fields, especially economics. The economic implications of corruption are significant for all countries, and the findings from these studies can help achieve various macroeconomic goals. Research on how corruption impacts economic variables has grown substantially over the last three decades, with economists leading much of this work.

A contemporary form of corrupt behavior, usually referred to as rent-seeking, has notable harmful economic effects. Baumol emphasized its negative impact on entrepreneurship and economic growth, as it shifts rewards away from productive activities [1]. Murphy et al., in their study of the ratio of law students to engineers in the US, also found that rent-seeking adversely affects economic growth [2]. Acemoglu [3] determined that corruption and rent-seeking divert economic resources towards unproductive activities. Cole and Chawdhry [4] also demonstrated that rent-seeking indirectly and negatively impacts public investments and services.

Many researchers, including Knack and Keefer [5], Sachs and Warner [6], and Pellegrini and Gerlagh [7], have shown that corruption hampers economic growth. Aidt et al. found that corruption significantly impedes economic growth in countries with robust institutional frameworks, while economic growth can help reduce corruption [8]. Mauro noted that corruption and other factors negatively impact investments and GDP per capita growth [9]. Méon and Sekkat argue that the quality of institutions is critical, as corruption significantly hampers growth in countries with weak institutions [10]. Similarly, Piplica and Čovo observed the immediate negative impact of corruption on economic growth in 10 transition countries [11]. Other researchers, including Poirson [12], Li et al. [13], Mo [14], Abed [15], Leite and Weidmann [16], and Gyimah-Brempong [17], have also documented how corruption adversely affects growth.

Guetat investigated the impact of corruption on investments and human capital in the Middle East and North Africa, finding that weak institutions severely hinder economic growth [18]. Studies by Kaufmann et al. [19], Neeman et al. [20], and Welsch [21] also concluded that corruption negatively impacts economic development.

Rose-Ackerman argues that corruption results in economic inefficiency and increased inequality [22]. Shleifer and Vishny [23] concluded that corruption incurs high costs, often enabled by central government practices that permit state administration bribery. Hines [24] discovered that the export growth rate of American aircraft post-1977 was notably lower in countries with high levels of corruption. Tanzi [25] found that corruption degrades infrastructure quality and negatively correlates with public revenue collection. Johnson et al. [26] reported that higher corruption levels correspond with a larger grey economy. Gupta et al. [27] linked corruption to higher child mortality rates and lower birth weights. Kaufmann et al. [19] and Mo [14] also highlighted corruption’s detrimental effects on child mortality and education. Herzfeld and Weiss noted that corruption weakens political institutions and the judiciary [28], a finding supported by Mo [14], who associated higher corruption with greater political instability.

Ben Ali and Sassi [29] found a positive link between corruption and inflation, a finding supported by Piplica [30] in his study of EU member states in transition. However, he observed the relationship to be indirect and delayed. Abed and Davoodi discovered that post-structural reforms weaken the positive correlation between corruption and inflation [15].

Altbach [31] linked corruption in higher education to the commercialization and marketization of the sector. Campos et al. [32] studied firm-level impacts of corruption, finding it raises operating costs, increases uncertainty, and deters investment. However, Batra et al. [33] and Gaviria [34] offered contrasting findings: Batra et al. found a significant negative impact on investments across 81 countries, while Gaviria reported no significant relationship in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Hellman et al. [35] suggested that companies benefiting from corruption might increase investments.

De Rosa et al. [36] analyzed corruption’s effect on productivity in Central and Eastern Europe, concluding that it negatively impacts company-level productivity. Fisman and Svensson [37] found a negative correlation between taxation, bribery, and company growth. Mikušová Meričková et al. [38] indicated that Slovakia’s legal framework quality influences the risk of public procurement corruption. Vuković [39] linked corruption with the coalition formation in the Croatian local government, and Frey et al. [40] associated business corruption in Croatia and Serbia with informal practices.

Public sector corruption is one of the most significant socio-economic challenges in the SEE region. It typically involves using political connections for personal gain, taking on multiple forms, including bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, and the distortion of public procurement. The all-pervasive and systemic nature of public sector corruption in SEE has attracted much attention from researchers, who analyzed it in the context of the legacy from the socialist times. In many SEE countries, governance mechanisms and the accompanying informal arrangements have not changed much since the socialist period. Centralized governance systems enable public officials to exercise extensive control over public sector organizations, public procurement, and government contracts. Coupled with the weak accountability mechanisms and nationalistic tendencies, there are many opportunities for the emergence of systematic and institutionalized corruption.

In the post-socialist era, the privatization processes, including the influx of foreign aid and investment, opened up new opportunities for systematic, large-scale corruption in the public sector, as old power networks adapted to the new circumstances. In some countries, there has been a practice of ‘capturing’ the institutions and the social practices (the so-called ‘state capture’). Such normalization of corruption has wide implications for the functioning of democratic institutions and the rule of law, as illegal practices become widely accepted, and the public trust in the newly formed states and their institutions quickly erodes. The economic repercussions are significant, as market functioning becomes distorted, public funds are allocated for private gains, and economic growth is diminished. The resulting social problems and inequalities are often blamed on the legacies of the socialist systems or the interfering foreign influence.

The European Union (EU) can be identified as a key influence in SEE anti-corruption efforts, as its enlargement principles impose conditionality, which links membership and financial aid to democratic, accountability, and governance reforms. In addition to public sector corruption, there is growing recognition of the significance of private-to-private corruption and its impact on market dynamics.

Private-to-private corruption is on the opposite spectrum of high-level, public-sector corruption. However, it can be easily linked to systematic corruption at the level of the political and economic elites. Namely, as society widely accepts and normalizes corruption, such practices become accepted among the private sector entities, which are further motivated to deal directly, without regard for official regulations and institutions. According to Jaakson et al. [41], this form of corruption appears as potential profits surpass the potential risks, especially if public governance and law enforcement are perceived as weak and inefficient. Private-to-private corruption can be regarded as ‘piggybacking’ on the primary corruption processes initiated by political elites. Nevertheless, its effects are detrimental, since it leads to additional competition distortion, innovation reduction, and overall inefficiency. Troisi et al. [42] suggest an integrated organizational model to eliminate private sector corruption, where ethical governance, corporate culture, and efficient internal controls are recognized as key elements in reducing corrupt behavior in the corporate environment.

Additional theoretical distinctions can be made between systematic and institutionalized (grand) and low-level, everyday corrupt activities (petty corruption) involving individuals, their routine interactions (usually within the public sector), and minor economic value. However, both forms of corruption are widespread and interconnected. An empirical study by Botrić [43] examines managers’ perceptions of corruption in Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia. Their common characteristic is that corruption is assessed as a significant problem in conducting business activities, especially when obtaining public sector contracts and navigating regulatory frameworks. This finding confirms the detrimental effects of grand corruption, which influences the private sector’s macroeconomic environments and major investment decisions. However, once again, petty corruption tends to ‘piggyback’ on the grand corruption patterns, with managers reporting frequent requests for low-level bribery and informal payments in everyday business operations. These practices are common when dealing with local and regional authorities, particularly where administrative processes are slow and complicated. Therefore, businesses may feel compelled to pay bribes to expedite permits, licenses, or inspections, making it challenging to operate transparently and ethically. In addition, the multiple and pervasive existence of petty corruption creates an environment where all forms of corrupt behavior are normalized and widely socially accepted.

The analyzed literature presents a very good overview of systematic and institutionalized corruption. However, it pays less attention to the evolution of petty corruption and its relationship with the SEE socio-political context. Similarly, the interaction between public and private corruption, particularly in the context of privatization and market reforms, remains undeveloped in the literature.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

This study is based on bibliometric data from the Elsevier Scopus database. The research is focused on anti-corruption-related publications from 2017 to 2022. We intended to cover various scientific outputs, including journal articles, reviews, books, conference proceedings, etc. The global literature was extracted from the Scopus database by using the following advanced bibliometric query:

TITLE-ABS-KEY(*corruption*) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2017)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“SOCI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“ECON”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“ARTS”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ch”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“re”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“bk”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“cp”))

The advanced query string for the extraction of relevant Scopus entries for the regional anti-corruption literature was the following:

TITLE-ABS-KEY(*corruption*) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“ECON”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,“ARTS”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ch”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“re”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“bk”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“cp”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2017)) AND (LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY,“Croatia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY,“Serbia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY,“Slovenia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY,“Bosnia and Herzegovina”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY,“North Macedonia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY,“Montenegro”))

Lists of analyzed papers, for regional and global literature, are available in Excel format, in the Supplementary Materials.

3.2. Data Analysis

This bibliometric analysis was conducted by Elsevier SciVal research intelligence solution. This tool processes different indicators to assess the productivity and impact of the anti-corruption research, including the following:

Scholarly output: total number of publications.
Citation count: total number of citations received.
Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI): relative ratio of the total citations received by the output to the total citations expected in the field of research (based on the global average).

The analysis included a visualization of the intellectual structure of the considered research outputs generated by the specialized VOSViewer 1.6.18 tool.

3.3. Research Questions, Scientific Contribution, and Potential Impact of the Study

This bibliometric study of corruption in SEE provides several important insights into the academic literature. Firstly, it represents a systematic approach to analyzing the extant corruption literature and informing the academic actors and policymakers of the research gaps and emerging trends within the SEE region’s corruption studies. As previously suggested, several areas have been underexplored, especially the relationship between different forms of corruption. However, all these fields might not be identified without a formal bibliometric analysis.

The additional intended contributions and the potential application of this study in anti-corruption policy led to the development of the following research questions:

How do regional and international collaborations in anti-corruption research differ, and what factors drive these differences? The analysis of research collaborations, both within the SEE region and on an international scale, can help identify the relevant topics and the dynamics of academic collaborations. These insights might be crucial for identifying the relevant policy fields and initiatives that might have been neglected.
What are the citation impacts of regional versus global anti-corruption research, and what explains the observed disparities? Citation indicators are valuable in assessing the impact of corruption research, offering insights into academic recognition and the influence of regional vs. global research outputs.
What are the dominant thematic areas in anti-corruption research globally and regionally, and how do they reflect specific socio-political contexts? A bibliometric method is especially effective in identifying dominant themes of the extant literature. By comparing these themes globally and regionally, we show how the socio-political contexts shape research priorities and discourse and how the regional research is contextualized within the broader corruption literature.

4. Results

4.1. Global Scholarly Output and Impact

From 2017 to 2022, the global anti-corruption literature featured 12,855 scientific publications (journal papers, books, book chapters, papers in proceedings, etc.) indexed in the Elsevier Scopus database (see Supporting Materials for the global paper list and the values of the associated bibliometric indicators on the publication level). While the global researchers’ interest in the anti-corruption field varies slightly, the absolute research impact seems to fall rapidly toward 2022, as the number of citations decreases from 16,863 to 2238 (see Table 1). To understand the decline in research output and citations in the anti-corruption field of research toward the end of 2022, it is important to consider the overall socio-economic context. Namely, the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the breakdown of the international rules-based order and the conflict in Ukraine, has shifted research priorities and put more emphasis on the issues of crisis management, resilience, and management of external threats. In addition, changing patterns in research funding, favoring the issues of natural sustainability and digital transformation, have also contributed to changing the researchers’ priorities and focus.

The relative impact may vary significantly due to the absolute number of citations expected across different research fields. Therefore, employing the relative impact metrics, such as the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), is much more useful. The FWCI metric accounts for inherently different expected numbers of total citations across scientific fields. It provides a relative measure of research impact, with a value of 1.0 for the impact level, equal to the global field average. Values above 1.0 indicate above-average relative impact and those below 1.0 the below-average impact [44]. The global anti-corruption literature demonstrates a relatively stable level of relative impact (around the average value of 1.0), which is the case with other relative impact indicators (the relative amount of scientific outputs in the top 10% according to citations received and top 10% of the most cited scientific journals).

Traditional scientific journals published by mainstream publishers are the preferred publication outlets for global anti-corruption researchers. MDPI’s open-access journal, Sustainability, is also featured as a prominent destination for anti-corruption research publications (see Table 2).

Table 2 shows that international journals generally have higher citation rates and normalized impact, as measured by relative indicators (e.g., the Source-Normalized Impact per Paper—SNIP). This indicator was proposed by the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CTWS) at the University of Leiden to measure the impact of Elsevier Scopus-indexed research papers. The essence of normalized citation measures is related to providing a unified benchmark, independent of the citation practices and absolute numbers of citations varying across scientific fields. However, compared to the journal’s normalized impact, it is still possible to compare the absolute citation rate per publication and journal SNIP values to gain insight into the relative impact of an article or a group of articles.

Since the citation rates per publication for anti-corruption research consistently exceed the journal SNIP values, it could be argued that global anti-corruption research is highly influential compared to the other research published in the analyzed journals. The observed trend is consistent across the analyzed journals despite significant differences in their coverage and impact.

Some of the analyzed journals generally exhibit high citation rates in absolute and normalized terms (as measured by the SNIP). These include the Journal of Business Ethics and Governance, with SNIP values of 2.863 and 2.453, respectively. The same applies to the lower performing niche journals, such as Journal of Financial Crime and Journal of Money Laundering Control, with SNIP values of 0.803 and 0.845, respectively. Therefore, corruption research exceeds the field-normalized impact expectations, even in more specialized publications.

The relative quality of the research output can be considered by using additional bibliometric indicators. However, we focus on the proportion of the global anti-corruption literature, featured in the top 1% and 5% sections of most cited scientific papers, indexed by Elsevier Scopus (see Table 3).

There is a relatively stable number of anti-corruption publications, not exceeding 1%, belonging to the top 1% most cited Scopus publications section. In the top 5% cited publications, the global anti-corruption literature represented 4.2% in 2021 and 7% in 2017.

4.2. Regional Scholarly Output and Impact

In the analyzed period, the SEE region generated a significant body of anti-corruption research (also available in the Supporting Materials). The total number of publications includes 186 scientific outputs, with the research interest decreasing toward 2022 (see Table 4). This finding concerns the loss of researchers’ interest in the topic and, potentially, the normalization of corruption in wider society. The new challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the resulting breakdown of the international rules-based order, inflationary pressures, and other issues, could have driven researchers’ interest. Based on these results, the SEE region’s capacity to meaningfully contribute to the global analysis of corruption might, unfortunately, come into question.

The total number of citations also decreases rapidly toward the end of the analyzed period. However, the relative impact values also show a considerable decline, with the FWCI value decreasing from 0.64 in 2017 to as low as 0.34 in 2022 (see Table 4). The other two relative impact indicators vary significantly, which might be interpreted as a non-systematic approach and a high dependency of regional SEE research on the interest and performance of the prominent regional researchers and research teams.

The preferred publication outlets of regional anti-corruption researchers are located within the analyzed region, such as Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo (Journal of Criminal Investigation and Criminology), published by the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia, Southeast European Journal of Economics and Business, published by University of Sarajevo—Faculty of Economics and Business (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ekonomska istraživanja (Economic Research), published by University of Pula—Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Dr. Mijo Mirković (Pula, Croatia), and Public Sector Economics, published by Institute of Public Finance (Zagreb, Croatia). Since we considered all Scopus-indexed scientific publications, a book published by SpringerNature (Exploring Police Integrity: Novel Approaches to Police Integrity Theory and Methodology) also entered the top five list of preferred publication sources for the regional researchers in the analyzed period.

The top ten preferred outlets for regional anti-corruption research are available in Table 5. Interestingly, none of the top ten publication outlets, preferred by the global anti-corruption researchers, is featured in the regional list. Only the Journal of Business Ethics, published by SpringerNature and considered one of the most prominent publications in business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR), occupies the 11th position on the regional list, with two published regional papers in the analyzed period, receiving 75 citations. However, these papers have many authors (47) and probably represent multi-country studies, with occasional contributors from the SEE region. This could suggest a lack of interest in the regional topics in the top global publications, which often leads to a certain level of discouragement, as regional researchers face long waiting times for editors’ decisions and desk rejections of topics not considered relevant enough for the global audience.

Once again, the bibliometric analysis of the regional research (see Table 5) repeats the patterns of the global corruption research. It is logical that the regional journals are more specialized and reflect the socio-economic challenges of their local context(s). As such, they receive fewer citations, but their average citations per publication exceed the regional journals’ SNIP values. This indicates that corruption research received more attention than average when adjusted for field-specific expectations. Even for the regional journals, the observed pattern is consistent across a variety of journals, including those with higher impact (including Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja and Economic Systems, with SNIP values of 1.329 and 1.437, respectively) and those which are more specialized (such as Public Sector Economics and Revija za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo, with the SNIP values of 0.518 and 0.817, respectively). It could be concluded that anti-corruption research attracts more impact than the average for the journal, even when published in regional outlets that serve niche research interests and audience.

We also evaluate the relative quality of the regional anti-corruption research by using the proportion of scientific output belonging to the population of the top 1% and top 5% cited publications in Elsevier Scopus (see Table 6).

There are no regional scientific outputs in the top 1% most cited publications section in Scopus throughout the analyzed period. The relative proportion of regional research output featured in the top 5% of highest cited Scopus publications varies significantly—from 2.7% in 2017 to 11.5% in 2019. Such a result could further support our assumption of the dependence of regional research performance on individual contributions and the performance of individual researchers. Therefore, we will further identify the top regional research institutions and individuals who might be considered top contributors. Starting with the regional academic institutions, we identify the region’s top five agenda-setting academic organizations (see Table 7) relevant to anti-corruption research.

The most influential individual researchers and papers, based on citation counts and the FWCI, are presented in Table 8 and Table 9.

Concerning national productivity, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia were the most productive countries in the SEE region (see Table 10).

The national research impact is considered using the conventional (total) citation count and the FWCI metric, which normalizes the number of total citations according to the historical field averages. The regional research impact, as demonstrated by Table 11, shows the highest total number of citations received by Serbian researchers. However, the highest relative impact, as measured by the FWCI, was achieved by researchers in North Macedonia, followed by those from Slovenia.

The regional distribution of the achieved research productivity and impact are visualized in Figure 1 (productivity) and Figure 2 (impact), contextualizing the relative impact with the values achieved by the national average in the wider Southern, Central, and Eastern European region.

4.3. International Collaboration Patterns in the Global and Regional Literature

Collaboration is critical for research quality and impact, especially in the SEE region, as demonstrated by multiple previous studies [45,46,47]. Patterns of global (see Table 12) and regional scientific collaboration (see Table 13) are similar: both international and regional researchers prefer international collaboration to national and institutional one. Reliance on international cooperation is even more prominent in the SEE region, with 32.8% of the analyzed corpus being produced by an international research team (compared to 20.1% in the global corpus of the anti-corruption literature). Still, 45.2% of the corpus is produced by single authors globally, and 37.6% regionally.

The effects of international collaboration are visible globally. The same pattern of international participation in research, as a factor driving the research impact, applies to both bodies of literature observed, as evidenced by Table 12 and Table 13.

5. Discussion: Comparative Evaluation of the Global vs. Regional Literature

5.1. Quantitative Evaluation of the Global and Regional Anti-Corruption Research: Intellectual Structure

The results of the bibliometric analysis show that individual contributions and research interests might heavily drive the regional research of anti-corruption topics and are dependent on global collaboration. This is not a novel finding, as it resonates with previous scientometric research of regional literature in different scientific fields [45,46,47]. The lack of systematicity and a clear research direction might lead to a decreased interest in high-level global publications (as shown by Table 5) and a lower research performance (demonstrated by Table 6).

We also consider how the inherent characteristics of global and regional research patterns might influence the intellectual structure of anti-corruption research. For this purpose, we created the keyword co-occurrence maps. They were created by downloading all the Scopus bibliometric records in the CSV format and importing them into the specialized VOSViewer visualization software.

The global intellectual structure of the anti-corruption research (see Figure 3, also available in high resolution in the Supporting Materials) demonstrates the existence of multiple thematic clusters. The core clusters concern the relationship of the anti-corruption research with the following issues:

Democracy, human rights, and the political power (red cluster);
Economic growth and performance, institutional quality and development (green cluster);
Ethics (morality), psychology, human behavior and justice (blue cluster);
Social and institutional transparency, economic crime and accountability, anti-corruption, anti-bribery, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and initiatives (purple cluster).

Additional peripheral clusters in the global anti-corruption research relate to the following more specialized topics:

Environment and environmental regulation, analysis of economic growth and efficiency in the anti-corruption context, and other niche topics (yellow cluster);
analysis of trust, human rights, and human behavior in the contexts of anti-corruption and policing (orange cluster).

The term ‘corruption’ represents the focal research construct in the regional keyword co-occurrence map (see Figure 4). The ‘surrounding’ themes concern a web of interconnected issues (denoted by the thickness of lines). These issues include economic growth and development, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), indicative of the line of literature that analyzes how corruption affects economic indicators and growth. The links to GDP emphasize the related studies on macroeconomic variables and their interaction with corruption.

Another important cluster relates to institutions, transition economies, and informal economies. This suggests an interest in the effect of institutional quality and governance mechanisms on corruption. Finally, the existence of transition economies indicates that much research involved particular constraints faced by SEE countries in moving from socialist systems toward market-based ones.

Keywords involving European integration and policy, strongly associated with the terms such as European Union or Europe, showcase another research topic, which analyzes the effects of European integration, including EU policies, on anti-corruption and governance reforms in SEE countries. This link suggests that the EU accession processes and regulatory frameworks may shape domestic corruption dynamics. The keywords for studies specific to individual countries, such as Croatia, Slovenia, or the Western Balkan countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia), focus on the nationally focused literature.

The connection with the topic of crime implies that much of the region’s research on corruption deals with the issues of organized crime and law enforcement. This association advises on the wider social consequences of corruption, concerning public safety and legal institution efficiency. Another topic is related to the issues of education and co-occurrences of corruption, indicating studies that investigate the consequence of corrupt activities on human capital formation and enterprise engagement.

A comparison of the global and regional intellectual structures shows a partial compatibility of regional anti-corruption research patterns with the core global themes of economic and institutional implications of corruption and economic crime. A regional focus on the European Union and integration is relevant and self-explanatory. However, there is a lack of regional research interest in democracy, human rights, political power, ethics, and CSR. The same applies to the core topics of psychology, human behavior, and justice in anti-corruption.

5.2. Qualitative Evaluation of Differences between Global and Regional Anti-Corruption Research

Multiple differences exist between the extant global and regional corruption research bodies tied to the specific political and socio-economic SEE contexts. While the global literature often refers to the macro-economic effects and the underlying governance mechanisms, regional research focuses on the systematic and institutionalized corruption, as well as the specific impact of EU-related initiatives and the conditionality introduced by the pre-accession and integration requirements. Several dimensions highlight the differences between these two bodies of anti-corruption literature:

As compared to the global literature, one of the significant characteristics of the regional corruption research concerns the cultural and historical legacies. Those are especially at play regarding the transition toward democratic governance and the introduction of market-based economic principles. The transition, including the post-transition experiences, has shaped the regional institutions and practices to a high degree, which also influences the research questions, methods, and patterns in the study of corruption. There is a body of knowledge concerning the potential influence of the old institutions and practices and how those continue to shape the current governance structures and dynamics of economic life. A comprehensive book edited by Kavaliauskas [48] looks at the transition experiences and emphasizes the role of informal networks and clientelism, often tracing roots to the socialist era elites. Members of the old elites and their associates have successfully adapted to the new socio-economic circumstances over the past 35 years, often perpetuating the corrupt practices. There might be even deeper roots to certain values and behaviors related to corruption, as indicated by studies looking at the broader historical heritage and contingencies as key aspects of corruption in the region [49]. On the other hand, global research is based on understanding how corrupt practices are produced and sustained within established democratic and capitalist systems.
Institutional economics has a significant influence on the practice of corruption, which the traditional economic models might not acknowledge. Wawrosz [50] acknowledges the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding and interpreting corruption, its incentives, and institutional structures driving corrupt behavior.
Due to the conditionality required by the EU accession standards, EU integration has been driving the majority of regional anti-corruption efforts. The EU pressure for governance reforms and transparency standards, often exemplified by the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and its head, Ms. Laura Codruța Kövesi, has fostered a distinct public discourse on this supranational commitment to combating fraud and corruption. Efforts at the European level have created a distinct regional research focus, with scholars examining the effectiveness of such an approach and its legal and institutional frameworks. This includes, analyzing the Copenhagen criteria for EU accession, monitoring mechanisms such as the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), and ensuring that anti-corruption measures are implemented and sustained even after accession, etc. It is a viable research question whether the institutional and policy measures are effective in altering the normalization of corruption, which is often perceived as a ‘way of life’ and followed by moral disengagement [51]. The global literature mirrors a lack of such external pressure in the more developed countries, which are expected to be more successful in the independent formulation and implementation of corruption policies. Due to the focus on compliance and the impact of EU conditionality on domestic anti-corruption efforts, a specific regional body of knowledge is being developed [52,53].
Regional research also focuses on specific topics, such as privatization [54] and the related institutional reforms, including founding anti-corruption agencies, legal reforms, and public sector transparency initiatives [55]. Specific topics, such as public sector corruption [56], oligarchic structures, democracy, and state capture [57,58] reflect the continuous regional challenges with democratic control over the socio-economic dimensions of institutionalized grand corruption. Out of the previously mentioned research topics, state capture is especially relevant, as it represents the final state of pervasive and entrenched corruption, where elites can manipulate (almost) all public resources and policies for personal gain. As stated bluntly by a study on organized crime in a weak institutional environment [59], “Every country has a mafia, but only in (…), does the mafia have a country”. Such an institutional failure can be analyzed through the emergence of informal networks, replacing the already weak institutions of the socialist era, and using the patterns of centralized state control and violent governance. A broader socio-economic analysis of state capture is provided in a volume edited by Kavaliauskas [48], demonstrating how embedded corruption makes it difficult to implement externally mandated reforms. When the described regional studies are compared to the global ones, it becomes clear why there is a lack of emphasis on contemporary governance frameworks and practices in regional literature, as discussed by Al-Faryan [60], who focuses on the theoretical role of the agency theory in formulating anti-corruption strategies in organizations.
There is a lack of regional research concerning private-sector corruption, which the global literature emphasizes [61]. Such a focus can be easily comprehended in the discourse of failing institutions and state capture, partly caused by the socio-economic context and historical legacies. However, as the region integrates quickly into global markets and multilateral institutional arrangements [62], there will be an increasing need to emphasize private sector corruption in future regional research.

6. Conclusions and Implications

This study is the first to conduct a comparative bibliometric analysis of global and regional (SEE) corruption research. We evaluated the productivity and impact of the two groups of research outputs, assessed the global vs. regional collaboration patterns, and mapped the intellectual structure of the extant bodies of (global and regional) knowledge. This study provides several insights into the characteristics of anti-corruption research:

This type of research has a high impact, as evidenced by the citation rates, which are higher than the SNIP values of the outlets publishing these studies. The observed trend is consistent across both global and regional publications, indicating the general scientific potential of the research field.
International cooperation improves the visibility and impact of regional research, comparable to previous bibliometric studies of regional scientific literature.
The socio-political and historical contexts significantly influence regional anti-corruption research, which focuses on corruption in the public sector and transition-related practices, such as privatization. Regional research prioritizes the issues of grand and institutionalized corruption, its normalization, and state capture, with the EU influence and EU accession conditionality also representing significant research topics. On the other hand, the global literature has steadily developed the topics of corporate governance and private sector corruption, which are far more relevant in the developed socio-economic context. However, regional researchers will probably broaden the scope of their future research as their countries increasingly integrate into the global economies and multilateral institutional frameworks.

We suggest that aligning regional efforts with global trends could further increase the impact of anti-corruption studies and identify the fields where there seems to be a gap between the regional and global literature. Altogether, our research provides a deeper understanding of anti-corruption research in the SEE region, as well as its impact and positioning within the global body of relevant knowledge, and offers a roadmap for policy-making, future research, and collaborative efforts.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/world5030039/s1, Table S1: List of analyzed global anti-corruption references (with article-level bibliometric indicators). Table S2: List of analyzed regional anti-corruption references (with article-level bibliometric indicators). Figure S1: High-resolution figure of intellectual structure of the global literature on anti-corruption. Figure S2: High-resolution figure of intellectual structure of the regional literature on anti-corruption.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.; methodology, N.A.; validation, I.P.; formal analysis, N.A.; data curation, N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P. and D.R.; writing—review and editing, D.P. and D.R.; visualization, N.A.; supervision, I.P.; project administration, I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no direct external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, since this study did not involve any humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable since this study did not involve research on humans.

Data Availability Statement

Research data are freely available to supplement this article.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Elsevier Research Intelligence division, which provided free access to Elsevier SciVal for academic research. Elsevier Scopus access was provided by the national licensing scheme, funded by the Croatian government. A previous version of this paper was presented at the The 1st Montenegrin International Conference on Economics & Business: Sustainable Development: Transition to Green Economy, organized by the University of Montenegro—Faculty of Economics, in Budva, 25–27 May 2023. The presented study has not been previously published in full text, and the current version has benefitted from the discussions held with the conference participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Baumol, W.J. Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. J. Political Econ. 1990, 98, 893–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Murphy, K.M.; Shleifer, A.; Vishny, R.W. The Allocation of Talent: Implications for Growth. Q. J. Econ. 1991, 106, 503–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Acemoglu, D. Reward Structures and the Allocation of Talent. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1995, 39, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cole, I.M.; Chawdhry, M.A. Rent Seeking and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Panel of US States. Cato J. 2002, 22, 211–228. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/a/cto/journl/v22y2002i2p211-228.html (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Knack, S.; Keefer, P. Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-Country Test Using Alternative Institutional Measures. Econ. Politics 1995, 7, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sachs, J.D.; Warner, A.M. Sources of Slow Growth in African Economies. J. Afr. Econ. 1997, 6, 335–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pellegrini, L.; Gerlagh, R. Corruption’s Effect on Growth and Its Transmission Channels. Kyklos 2004, 57, 429–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aidt, T.J.; Dutta, J.; Sena, V. Governance Regimes, Corruption, and Growth: Theory and Evidence. J. Comp. Econ. 2008, 36, 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mauro, P. Corruption and Growth. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 110, 681–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Méon, P.G.; Sekkat, K. Does Corruption Grease or Sand the Wheels of Growth? Public Choice 2005, 122, 69–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Piplica, D.; Čovo, P. Corruption and Economic Growth in Croatia. Oeconomica Iadert. 2011, 2, 85–99. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/111606 (accessed on 12 June 2024). [CrossRef]
Poirson, H. Economic Security, Private Investment, and Growth in Developing Countries. In IMF Working Paper; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/30/Economic-Security-Private-Investment-and-Growth-in-Developing-Countries-2456 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Li, H.; Xu, L.C.; Zou, H. Corruption, Income Distribution, and Growth. Econ. Politics 2000, 12, 155–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mo, P.H. Corruption and Economic Growth. J. Comp. Econ. 2001, 29, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abed, G.T. Corruption, Structural Reforms, and Economic Performance in the Transition Economies. In Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance; Abed, G.T., Gupta, S., Eds.; International Monetary Fund Publication Services: Washington DC, USA, 2002; pp. 489–537. Available online: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589061163/ch018.xml (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Leite, C.A.; Weidmann, J. Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption, and Economic Growth. In IMF Working Paper; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/30/Does-Mother-Nature-Corrupt-Natural-Resources-Corruption-and-Economic-Growth-3126 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Gyimah-Brempong, K. Corruption, Economic Growth, and Income Inequality in Africa. Econ. Gov. 2002, 3, 183–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Guetat, I. The Effects of Corruption on Growth Performance of the MENA Countries. J. Econ. Financ. 2006, 30, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kaufmann, D.; Kraay, A.; Zoido-Lobatón, P. Governance Matters. In World Bank Policy Research Working Paper; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; No. 2196; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=188568 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Neeman, Z.; Paserman, M.D.; Simhon, A. Corruption and Openness. Econ. Politics 2004, 16, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Welsch, H. Corruption, Growth, and the Environment: A Cross-Country Analysis. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2004, 9, 663–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rose-Ackerman, S. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shleifer, A.; Vishny, R.W. Corruption. Q. J. Econ. 1993, 108, 599–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hines, J.R. Forbidden Payment: Foreign Bribery and American Business After 1977. In NBER Working Paper; NBER: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995; No. 5266; Available online: https://www.nber.org/papers/w5266 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Tanzi, V. Corruption, Public Investment, and Growth. In Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance; Abed, G.T., Gupta, S., Eds.; International Monetary Fund Publication Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 280–299. Available online: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589061163/ch011.xml (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Johnson, S.; Kaufmann, D.; Shleifer, A. The Unofficial Economy in Transition. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 1997, 27, 159–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gupta, S.; Davoodi, H.; Tiongson, E. Corruption and the Provision of Health Care and Education Services. In IMF Working Paper; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/30/Corruption-and-the-Provision-of-Health-Care-and-Education-Services-3652 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
Herzfeld, T.; Weiss, C. Corruption and Legal (In)effectiveness: An Empirical Investigation. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2003, 19, 621–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ben Ali, M.S.; Sassi, S. The corruption-inflation nexus: Evidence from developed and developing countries. BE J. Macroecon. 2016, 16, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Piplica, D. Corruption and Inflation in Transition EU Member Countries. Ekon. Misao I Praksa 2011, 20, 469–506. [Google Scholar]
Altbach, P. Ten Years: The Centre for International Higher Education and International Higher Education; International Higher Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Campos, E.J.; Lien, D.; Pradhan, S. The Impact of Corruption on Investment: Predictability Matters. World Dev. 1999, 27, 1059–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Batra, G.; Kaufmann, D.; Stone, A. Investment Climate Around The World: Voices of the Firms from the World Business Environment Survey; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
Gaviria, A. Assessing the Effects of Corruption and Crime on Firm Performance: Evidence from Latin America. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2002, 3, 245–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hellman, J.S.; Jones, G.; Kaufmann, D. Far From Home: Do Foreign Investors Import Higher Standards of Governance in Transition Economies? In World Bank Working Paper; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Rosa, D.; Gooroochurn, N.; Görg, H. Corruption and Productivity: Firm-level Evidence. J. Econ. Stat. 2015, 235, 115–138. [Google Scholar]
Fisman, R.; Svensson, J. Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. J. Dev. Econ. 2007, 83, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mikušová Meričková, B.; Majerík, M.; Lendvorský, M. The problem of corruption in the contracting out of public services—The case of Slovakia. Acta Univ. Bohem. Meridionales 2021, 4, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vuković, V. Corruption and Coalition Formation: The Case of Croatian Local Government. Political Stud. Rev. 2017, 15, 101–112. [Google Scholar]
Frey, B.; Škrinjarić, B.; Budak, J. Private sector perspective on corruption and informality: A comparative analysis of Serbia and Croatia. Post-Communist Econ. 2024, 36, 506–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jaakson, K.; Johannsen, L.; Pedersen, K.H.; Vadi, M.; Ashyrov, G.; Reino, A.; Sööt, M.L. The Role of Costs, Benefits, and Moral Judgments in Private-to-Private Corruption. Crime Law Soc. Change 2019, 71, 83–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Troisi, R.; Di Nauta, P.; Piciocchi, P. Private Corruption: An Integrated Organizational Model. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2022, 19, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Botrić, V. Managers’ Perception of Corruption in Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia. Hrvat. I Komparat. Javna Uprava 2020, 20, 699–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Purkayastha, A.; Palmaro, E.; Falk-Krzesinski, H.J.; Baas, J. Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). J. Informetr. 2019, 13, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alfirević, N.; Zdrilić, I.; Rendulić, D. Mapping the sustainable production and consumption literature in South East Europe. In International Conference on Sustainable Development; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alfirević, N.; Rendulić, D.; Zdrilić, I. Bibliometric Analysis of Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) Literature in South East Europe. In International Symposium on Annual Days of BHAAAS in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alfirević, N.; Pavičić, J.; Rendulić, D. A Bibliometric Analysis of Public Business School Scientific Productivity and Impact in South-East Europe (2017–2021). South East Eur. J. Econ. Bus. 2023, 18, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kavaliauskas, T. (Ed.) Europe Thirty Years After 1989: Transformations of Values, Memory, and Identity; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 359. [Google Scholar]
Uberti, L.J. Corruption in transition economies: Socialist, Ottoman or structural? Econ. Syst. 2018, 42, 533–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wawrosz, P. How Corruption Is and Should Be Investigated by Economic Theory. Economies 2022, 10, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Takacs Haynes, K.; Rašković, M. Living with corruption in Central and Eastern Europe: Social identity and the role of moral disengagement. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 174, 825–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kurtoglu Eskisar, G.M.; Komsuoglu, A. A critical assessment of the transformative power of EU reforms on reducing corruption in the Balkans. Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud. 2015, 15, 301–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Elbasani, A.; Šabić, S.Š. Rule of law, corruption and democratic accountability in the course of EU enlargement. J. Eur. Public Policy 2018, 25, 1317–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ivanović, V.; Uberti, L.J.; Imami, D. Opportunistic Privatization. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2023, 80, 102479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mungiu-Pippidi, A.; Dadašov, R. Measuring control of corruption by a new index of public integrity. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 2016, 22, 415–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ateljevic, J.; Budak, J. Corruption and public procurement: Example from Croatia. J. Balk. Near East. Stud. 2010, 12, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Perry, V.; Keil, S. The Business of State Capture in the Western Balkans: An Introduction. Southeast. Eur. 2018, 42, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sotiropoulos, D.A. Corruption, anti-corruption and democracy in the Western Balkans. Political Perspect. J. Political Res. 2017, 7, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hislope, R. Organized crime in a disorganized state: How corruption contributed to Macedonia’s mini-war. Probl. Post-Communism 2002, 49, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Faryan, M.A.S. Agency Theory, Corporate Governance and Corruption: An Integrative Literature Review Approach. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2024, 10, 2337893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Castro, A.; Aguilera, R.V.; González, L.E. Corporate Corruption: A Review and an Agenda for Future Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2020, 14, 935–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kostadinova, T.; Spirova, M. Combatting Corruption. In The Routledge Handbook of East European Politics; Fagan, A., Kopecký, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 307–318. [Google Scholar]

Figure 1. Anti-corruption publication productivity map. Source: based on Elsevier SciVal bibliometric reports and Elsevier Scopus data. Numbers represent the scholarly output.

Figure 2. Anti-corruption publication impact map. Source: based on Elsevier SciVal bibliometric reports and Elsevier Scopus data. Numbers represent the FWCI values.

Figure 3. Intellectual structure of the global literature on anti-corruption (2017–2022): keyword co-occurrence map. Source: author’s analysis (based on VOSViewer visualization).

Figure 4. Intellectual structure of the SEE literature on anti-corruption (2017–2022): keyword co-occurrence map. Source: author’s analysis (based on VOSViewer visualization).

Table 1. Bibliometric performance of global anti-corruption research (2017–2022).

Bibliometric Indicator	Overall	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Scholarly Output	12,854	2026	2031	2154	2169	2172	2302
Citations	63,009	16,863	15,492	13,492	9327	5597	2238
Field-Weighted Citation Impact	0.96	1.1	0.94	1.04	0.9	0.84	0.96
Outputs in Top Citation Percentiles (top 10%, field-weighted)	10.8	12.4	10.8	11.4	10.1	9.8	10.4
Publications in Top Journal Percentiles (top 10% by CiteScore percentile)	19.6	17.1	18.9	17.7	18.2	20.4	23.4
Citations per Publication	4.9	8.3	7.6	6.3	4.3	2.6	1