Frames, Narrative and Interpretations of Corruption and Integrity

Abstract

Corruption and integrity are notoriously difficult to define, delimitate and measure, while being value-laden terms. These ‘essentially contested concepts’ are the source of great ambiguity, in terms of their conceptualization, and in existing causal explanations. Is corruption a systematic or an individual problem? Do we ‘naturally’ act with integrity and become corrupted? To what extent does trust reduce or induce corruption? Ambiguity leaves room to interpretation, all the more important since ambiguity can be a powerful tool, to gather support for a cause, or dilute responsibility for crisis. By organizing information and reducing complexity, actors can resolve the ambiguity of corruption and try to make sense of it in various ways. This panel is interested in how interpretations, narratives or frames draws our attention to certain features of corruption or integrity while blinding us to others. This leads to different social reactions and or policy options. The panel proposes various ways to explore the interpretations of corruption and integrity, in political discourse, in the media and in popular culture. Furthermore, the panel focuses on the complex link between trust, social capital and corruption, a relationship long understood unidimensionally with social capital as a positive element to reduce corruption.