SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
5
TYPOLOGY OF TYPES OF CORRUPTION AND ITS PHYLOSOPHICAL
REVIEW
Latipov Sardor Shavkatovich
Internal Affairs Directorate of Navoi region
Head of the Department of Internal Affairs of Zarafshan city
E-mail: sardorlatipov086@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16760648
Annotation:
This article analyzes various theoretical approaches and
criteria for the classification of corruption, where corruption is categorized
based on objects, subjects, levels of authority, and territorial scope. Additionally,
corruption is examined in its public and private, domestic and international,
economic and political, administrative and business forms, and its impact on
social relations is assessed as a systemic phenomenon. Furthermore, the article
substantiates the necessity of in-depth study of corruption cases and the
importance of their comprehensive classification.
Keywords:
state, responsibility, legal reforms, anti-corruption, criminal
law, legal analysis, methodology, theory, social risk, prevention.
Currently, different approaches to the typology of corruption are observed
based on classification: by objects, subjects, by level of authority. However, it
should be noted that at present, there are different approaches to the
classification of corruption in the scientific literature. It should be noted that
H.A. Akhmetova’s statement that “most of the presented classification schemes
are one-dimensional in nature, that is, they do not claim to fully reflect the forms
and types of corrupt practices, but are limited to one, maximum two signs of the
phenomenon under study” are not sufficiently justified, since not every
classification can be divided and comprehensive.
S. Rouse-Ackerman proposes to classify corruption on two grounds:
according to the type of bribe-takers – political and administrative,
where the former is related to the adoption of laws, the main type of bribe-
takers are representatives of the government and heads of state, the second –
using state laws;
By type of bribe market: centralized (there is a relatively small
market for corruption proposals) and decentralized corruption (payment for
services with bribes happens everywhere) [1].
Classifying corruption based on separate acts, S. Rottenberg identified three
types of corruption. The first type of corruption means that there are
circumstances in which the payment of corruption is receivable for such a
service, which must be made without the existence of it. The latter, on the
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
6
contrary, involves taking a fee for not doing something that requires compliance
with rules and norms. The third type of corruption occurs when the payment of
a particular act involves a direct violation of the laws [2].
Within the framework of this classification, the first type of corruption
concerns the ability of a civil servant to dispose of public resources and make
decisions based on his own interests, and not based on the interests and needs
of the state and society.
Parliamentary corruption is, in fact, various forms of lobbying the interests
of certain social, very narrow groups, and consists of passing laws containing
norms, which involve assigning a certain privileged position to a particular
group.
As mentioned above, since an employee of an organization as well as an
official may dispose of resources that do not belong to him, a corrupt attitude
expressed by an act or omission that violates the interests of his organization
may arise.
In foreign countries, often, the buying of voter votes during an election
becomes a separate type of corruption.
The basis for the classification of corruption, proposed by I. Ahmedov [3], is
the degree of participation of an official in receiving profits from the
organization, in this connection he emphasizes progressive corruption, which
includes corruption aimed at increasing profits by entrepreneurs obtained as a
result of granting privileges and opportunities by an official, and creating certain
obstacles to the implementation of entrepreneurial activities.
In the case of Eastern corruption, corruption gradually forms a certain
system of social relations, which in turn is closely related to other social
relations, including kinship, corporate, professional relations, which makes
corruption in a particular state a systemic factor.
A number of researchers, including Yu.G. Naumov, classified corruption
according to the goals of the subjects’ activities [4]. Thus, a division into
economic and political corruption is proposed.
Under economic corruption Yu.G. Naumov understands corruption aimed at
ownership, redistribution, the use of all forms and resources of ownership,
access to which is provided by an official position. At the same time, political
corruption is understood as corruption in which individuals desire to
redistribute power.
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
7
At the same time, in our opinion, it does not seem entirely correct to draw
such a line of demarcation, since the political goal (power) is in defined
terminology and the economic goal is the possibility of disposing of resources.
In our opinion, it is desirable to classify corruption on the following
grounds: the status of subjects of corruption relations, the level of subjects, the
scope of territorial coverage, the degree of recurrence of corruption relations.
Thus, according to the status of the subjects, corruption can be divided into
public and private.
State type of corruption is the commission of acts of corruption within the
competence of a state div. Perhaps this type of corruption is the biggest threat
because separate groups of people use public power only for personal purposes
and interests, not really under the control of society.
Recently, corruption in the private sector has been on the rise, including the
concentration of vast resources in the hands of individual organizations.
The head of such an organization, like any other employee with the ability
to allocate resources, can make and act contrary to the company’s mission and
vision, causing him certain damage, the purpose of which is to enrich himself.
It is also recommended to distinguish corruption processes by the scope of
territorial coverage, dividing domestic (the situation in which corrupt acts are
committed on the territory of one country, regardless of the status of the subject
of corruption) and international corruption (actions aimed at corrupting officials
of foreign states or joint corrupt activities of citizens and officials of several
states).
Depending on the degree of repetition of corrupt acts, it is desirable to
distinguish between single (or accidental) corruption, which involves single
facts of corruption, and systemic corruption, which occurs during periodically
repeated corruption interactions, which in one way or another covers all aspects
of social life, gradually turning into a socially acceptable phenomenon.
Perhaps in its most general form, corruption can be divided into
administrative and business.
Administrative corruption is related to the activities of public authorities. It
is understood to be a deliberate alteration of the processes of proper execution
of the rules and norms that govern a particular area in order to grant benefits to
certain actors.
In conclusion, correctly classifying the various forms of corruption is
essential for a deep understanding of the phenomenon and for effectively
combating it. In the study, corruption is classified based on various criteria,
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
8
including objects, subjects, levels of authority, territorial scope, degree of
recurrence, and areas of activity. Based on the approaches of scholars such as
Rose-Ackerman, Rottenberg, Ahmedov, and Naumov, various types of corruption
political, economic, administrative, public, private, systemic, and incidental have
been examined. These approaches play an important role in identifying,
assessing, and developing practical measures aimed at reducing corruption
cases.
References:
1.
Rose-Ackerman, S. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences,
and Reform. Moscow, 2003, p. 150.
2.
Rottenberg, S. Comment // The Journal of Law and Economics, 1975, Vol.
18.
3.
Musheshe, N. NGO and Mobilization Against Corruption / Africa
Leadership Forum. Corruption, Democracy and Human Rights in East and
Central Africa. Entebbe, Republic of Uganda, December 12–14, 1994. Ibadan, pp.
133–134.
4.
Scott, J.C. Comparative Political Corruption. New York, 1972, p. 88.
5.
Proyava, S.M. Economization of Corruption. Counteraction Mechanism:
Monograph. Moscow, 2008, pp. 32–33.
6.
Akhmedov, I. Corruption Lawlessness // Monitor, April 10, 2003, No. 14.
7.
Beken, T.V. A European View on the Russian Draft Federal Law “On the
Fundamentals of Anti-Corruption Policy” // State and Law, 2002, No. 6, p. 118.
8.
Naumov, Yu.G. Corruption and Society: Theoretical-Economic and Applied
Research: Monograph. Vladimir, 2007, p. 44.
