Loading…

Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship

Systemic corruption is usually described as a stable self-reinforcing equilibrium that traps individuals by reducing incentives to behave honestly. This article assumes that law enforcement institutions may also be trapped in this equilibrium, leaving no alternative to individuals who want to report...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The University of Toronto law journal 2021-11, Vol.71 (supplement 1), p.74-102
Main Authors: Mota Prado, Mariana, de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3
container_end_page 102
container_issue supplement 1
container_start_page 74
container_title The University of Toronto law journal
container_volume 71
creator Mota Prado, Mariana
de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel
description Systemic corruption is usually described as a stable self-reinforcing equilibrium that traps individuals by reducing incentives to behave honestly. This article assumes that law enforcement institutions may also be trapped in this equilibrium, leaving no alternative to individuals who want to report corruption. Would the existence of multiple institutions performing accountability functions – what we call institutional multiplicity – reduce the probability that all institutions would be trapped in a systemic corruption environment? We start by hypothesizing that even in contexts of systemic corruption there may be ‘pockets of honesty.’ If this is the case, institutional multiplicity, by increasing the number of accountability institutions available, may create avenues for individuals to report corruption. On the other hand, multiplicity may also increase the risk of ‘façade enforcement’ – that is, the mere appearance of accountability that reinforces a systemic corruption equilibrium. We illustrate these two scenarios with Brazilian examples. We end the article with a discussion of the design of accountability systems in contexts of systemic corruption, arguing that there may be advantages in preserving institutional multiplicity if its deleterious effects are addressed. While based on the Brazilian experience, this article advances theoretical hypotheses that may be useful to other countries.
doi_str_mv 10.3138/utlj-2020-0119
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2610690110</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2610690110</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkM1LAzEQxYMoWKtXzwHPW2eyH8l602JVKHhQzzFms5iS_TDJQutf74Y6l8cb3jyGHyHXCKscc3E7RbfLGDDIALE-IQvkCBkiL07JAqBgGTAG5-QihB3MU9bVgny-HUI0ndVUD95PY7RDT1XfUNuHaOOUvHK0m1y0o7PaxsMdffDq1zqremr2qhudCXRoqZorktlTb5xKh-HbjpfkrFUumKt_XZKPzeP7-jnbvj69rO-3mWYVj1nJFRPCaDClKLj4MmUOugBVIG-QMa5MaWZpyqZA4KJsjMixFqppEeaFyZfk5tg7-uFnMiHK3TD5-fcgWYVQ1TMUmFOrY0r7IQRvWjl62yl_kAgyUZSJokwUZaKY_wFJ6GcP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2610690110</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship</title><source>Nexis UK</source><source>Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Mota Prado, Mariana ; de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</creator><creatorcontrib>Mota Prado, Mariana ; de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</creatorcontrib><description>Systemic corruption is usually described as a stable self-reinforcing equilibrium that traps individuals by reducing incentives to behave honestly. This article assumes that law enforcement institutions may also be trapped in this equilibrium, leaving no alternative to individuals who want to report corruption. Would the existence of multiple institutions performing accountability functions – what we call institutional multiplicity – reduce the probability that all institutions would be trapped in a systemic corruption environment? We start by hypothesizing that even in contexts of systemic corruption there may be ‘pockets of honesty.’ If this is the case, institutional multiplicity, by increasing the number of accountability institutions available, may create avenues for individuals to report corruption. On the other hand, multiplicity may also increase the risk of ‘façade enforcement’ – that is, the mere appearance of accountability that reinforces a systemic corruption equilibrium. We illustrate these two scenarios with Brazilian examples. We end the article with a discussion of the design of accountability systems in contexts of systemic corruption, arguing that there may be advantages in preserving institutional multiplicity if its deleterious effects are addressed. While based on the Brazilian experience, this article advances theoretical hypotheses that may be useful to other countries.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-0220</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1710-1174</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3138/utlj-2020-0119</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>University of Toronto Press</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Corruption ; Equilibrium ; Honesty ; Hypotheses ; Law enforcement ; Legal studies</subject><ispartof>The University of Toronto law journal, 2021-11, Vol.71 (supplement 1), p.74-102</ispartof><rights>Copyright University of Toronto Press 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27866,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mota Prado, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</creatorcontrib><title>Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship</title><title>The University of Toronto law journal</title><description>Systemic corruption is usually described as a stable self-reinforcing equilibrium that traps individuals by reducing incentives to behave honestly. This article assumes that law enforcement institutions may also be trapped in this equilibrium, leaving no alternative to individuals who want to report corruption. Would the existence of multiple institutions performing accountability functions – what we call institutional multiplicity – reduce the probability that all institutions would be trapped in a systemic corruption environment? We start by hypothesizing that even in contexts of systemic corruption there may be ‘pockets of honesty.’ If this is the case, institutional multiplicity, by increasing the number of accountability institutions available, may create avenues for individuals to report corruption. On the other hand, multiplicity may also increase the risk of ‘façade enforcement’ – that is, the mere appearance of accountability that reinforces a systemic corruption equilibrium. We illustrate these two scenarios with Brazilian examples. We end the article with a discussion of the design of accountability systems in contexts of systemic corruption, arguing that there may be advantages in preserving institutional multiplicity if its deleterious effects are addressed. While based on the Brazilian experience, this article advances theoretical hypotheses that may be useful to other countries.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Corruption</subject><subject>Equilibrium</subject><subject>Honesty</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Legal studies</subject><issn>0042-0220</issn><issn>1710-1174</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNotkM1LAzEQxYMoWKtXzwHPW2eyH8l602JVKHhQzzFms5iS_TDJQutf74Y6l8cb3jyGHyHXCKscc3E7RbfLGDDIALE-IQvkCBkiL07JAqBgGTAG5-QihB3MU9bVgny-HUI0ndVUD95PY7RDT1XfUNuHaOOUvHK0m1y0o7PaxsMdffDq1zqremr2qhudCXRoqZorktlTb5xKh-HbjpfkrFUumKt_XZKPzeP7-jnbvj69rO-3mWYVj1nJFRPCaDClKLj4MmUOugBVIG-QMa5MaWZpyqZA4KJsjMixFqppEeaFyZfk5tg7-uFnMiHK3TD5-fcgWYVQ1TMUmFOrY0r7IQRvWjl62yl_kAgyUZSJokwUZaKY_wFJ6GcP</recordid><startdate>20211101</startdate><enddate>20211101</enddate><creator>Mota Prado, Mariana</creator><creator>de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</creator><general>University of Toronto Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211101</creationdate><title>Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship</title><author>Mota Prado, Mariana ; de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Corruption</topic><topic>Equilibrium</topic><topic>Honesty</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Legal studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mota Prado, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>The University of Toronto law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mota Prado, Mariana</au><au>de Mattos Pimenta, Raquel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship</atitle><jtitle>The University of Toronto law journal</jtitle><date>2021-11-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>supplement 1</issue><spage>74</spage><epage>102</epage><pages>74-102</pages><issn>0042-0220</issn><eissn>1710-1174</eissn><abstract>Systemic corruption is usually described as a stable self-reinforcing equilibrium that traps individuals by reducing incentives to behave honestly. This article assumes that law enforcement institutions may also be trapped in this equilibrium, leaving no alternative to individuals who want to report corruption. Would the existence of multiple institutions performing accountability functions – what we call institutional multiplicity – reduce the probability that all institutions would be trapped in a systemic corruption environment? We start by hypothesizing that even in contexts of systemic corruption there may be ‘pockets of honesty.’ If this is the case, institutional multiplicity, by increasing the number of accountability institutions available, may create avenues for individuals to report corruption. On the other hand, multiplicity may also increase the risk of ‘façade enforcement’ – that is, the mere appearance of accountability that reinforces a systemic corruption equilibrium. We illustrate these two scenarios with Brazilian examples. We end the article with a discussion of the design of accountability systems in contexts of systemic corruption, arguing that there may be advantages in preserving institutional multiplicity if its deleterious effects are addressed. While based on the Brazilian experience, this article advances theoretical hypotheses that may be useful to other countries.</abstract><pub>University of Toronto Press</pub><doi>10.3138/utlj-2020-0119</doi><tpages>29</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0042-0220
ispartof The University of Toronto law journal, 2021-11, Vol.71 (supplement 1), p.74-102
issn 0042-0220
1710-1174
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2610690110
source Nexis UK; Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection; PAIS Index
subjects Accountability
Corruption
Equilibrium
Honesty
Hypotheses
Law enforcement
Legal studies
title Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T02%3A05%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systemic%20corruption%20and%20institutional%20multiplicity:%20Brazilian%20examples%20of%20a%20complex%20relationship&rft.jtitle=The%20University%20of%20Toronto%20law%20journal&rft.au=Mota%20Prado,%20Mariana&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=supplement%201&rft.spage=74&rft.epage=102&rft.pages=74-102&rft.issn=0042-0220&rft.eissn=1710-1174&rft_id=info:doi/10.3138/utlj-2020-0119&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2610690110%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c267t-57a288ec0e58478be530c40a417d1227ae5e227d5d410785de83198adf10107e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2610690110&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true