You Perceive from Where You Sit: Perception of Corruption by Different Actor Groups in Lithuania

It has been observed and documented that legal norms to fight or prevent corruption do not easily translate into desirable practices, hence, corruption persists. Such inability of formalised anti-corruption remedies has largely been explained by the fact that legal norms do not directly target existing quick-to-adapt informal practices. According to the field-specific literature and, more generally, institutionalist theories of sociological inspiration, legal remedies, in order to succeed, have to be sufficiently context-relevant, instead of emulated. This institutionalist perspective suggests its parallel in terms of actor groups: if there are specific actors responsible for devising and enacting supposedly transferable legal norms (actors such as newly established anti-corruption agencies), their perception of corruption might be at odds with context-specific perceptions, for example, as regards other groups of actors, or sectors. Based on these insights, the paper aims to test the hypothesis, according to which corruption is perceived differently by the public in general, public servants, and the business community. The paper will provide a quantitative analysis of a relevant national survey (so far, unexplored) from Lithuania (“Map of Corruption in Lithuania,” 2014 and 2016). Lithuania is a representative case of Eastern Europe, where perception of corruption by the public remains high, despite the implementation of legal measures; this puzzle has already generated interest among regional scholars, but the proposed hypothesis has not attracted sufficient attention. Besides, comparable patterns of public perception are also observed in Southern Europe, which suggests more generalisable conclusions of the analysis proposed. Finally, the research project will contribute to the debate on the perception of corruption by investigating the possibility of corruption being more about emotions and general dissatisfaction (within the public) and, hence, by contributing to research on corruption as being an effect rather than a cause of complex socio-political and economic dynamics.