South Africa

Corruption and behaviour change — promoting civic values can help reduce plunder

8 Dec 2024

As we mark International Anti-Corruption Day, the HSRC’s ‘Corruption and Behaviour Change: Tracking Social Norms and Values in South Africa’ study looks at understanding how we can create a culture of zero tolerance for corruption among the general public.

On 9 December 2024, we commemorate International Anti-Corruption Day. At this time, we are reminded of the almost daily news reports of serious corruption in South Africa. These events highlight the reality that the recommendations by the Zondo commission of inquiry into State Capture are only the end of the beginning of the struggle against widespread corruption.

Far too many people feel no compunction about plundering from the state and stealing from struggling South Africans. Corruption prevents the equitable future promised by our Constitution.

The National Anti-Corruption Strategy (Nacs) 2020-2030 is a whole-of-society plan to combat corruption in South Africa. It promotes and encourages active citizenry and transparency in all spheres of society. The vision of the Nacs is a South Africa where citizens uphold ethical values, including integrity, honesty and fairness.

Among the goals of the Nacs is the creation of a culture of zero tolerance for corruption, calling on members of the public to refuse to participate in corruption and to report it if they witness it. The overall objective of a zero-tolerance culture is a just and equitable society for everyone in the country.

However, the Nacs is only a technical framework and it is necessary to develop more detailed anti-corruption programmes. To assist with the creation of such programmes, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), supported by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), is undertaking a multi-year study entitled Corruption and Behaviour Change: Tracking Social Norms and Values in South Africa.

The primary aim of the study is to try to understand how we can create a culture of zero-tolerance for corruption among the general public. The study focuses on the social norms and values that inform both anti-corruption and corruption attitudes and behaviours in post-apartheid South Africa, and how to encourage changes to those attitudes and behaviours. This article discusses findings on the impact, scale of and tolerance for corruption that have emerged from our study to date.

Read more: South Africa must look beyond prosecution for anti-corruption remedies that work

Using its South African Social Attitudes Survey research architecture, in 2023/24 the HSRC conducted a nationally representative public opinion survey among 3,112 adults aged 16 years and older to identify the social norms and values that inform attitudes to corruption in South Africa.

The public opinion survey was complemented by a survey of 67 experts from a wide range of disciplines (including political science, law, sociology, social policy, governance and public administration). These surveys were supplemented by 16 key informant qualitative engagements with experts in related areas of research.

Beneath the surface — the perceived depth of corruption

Our research has shown that a substantial proportion of the general public thinks that corruption is a major problem in South Africa. Data revealed a widespread belief among the populace that corruption had a large societal impact.

More than three-quarters (79%) of the adult population believed that the impact of corruption on the general economy was substantial. Given these findings, it was not surprising to observe widespread concern among the general public about the level of corruption among different elite groups in South Africa.

corruption south africa

Drivers of corruption

Experts surveyed for our study were asked what factors drive corruption in South Africa. In general, experts tended to use psychological (ie internal) factors such as greed and dishonesty to explain why elites participate in corruption. Several experts felt that elite corruption was driven by entitlement, materialism and opportunism.

However, when asked about non-elites, experts tended to view environmental (ie external) factors as more significant. Environmental factors raised included institutional dysfunction and poor law enforcement. Experts were also more likely to highlight survivalist pressures, the need to navigate dishonest state systems, as well as structural economic exclusion, as drivers of corruption among non-elites.

Public tolerance for corruption

Our public attitudes survey data showed that a noteworthy minority share of the public views corrupt behaviour as justifiable. Remarkably, corrupt behaviours like nepotism are not seen as more or less justifiable than more overt forms of corruption (eg accepting bribes). Although the level of difference here was not large, the least justified behaviour is sexual favours for employment.

It was also interesting to note that a sizeable number of people view contact crime as justifiable, which may indicate support for vigilantism. The average justifiability score for stealing from a shop was, for example, not too different from the justifiability scores for less serious crimes.

Deciphering public tolerance for corruption

Many experts interviewed for the study are worried about tolerance of corruption in South Africa. While respondents are divided about whether people in the country value the rule of law, one expert stated that only a minority of the national population respects and values the law. Many experts surveyed agreed and are quite pessimistic about the state of South African society and described the country as “lawless” and “violent”.

As part of our public opinion survey, fieldworkers asked participants about the acceptability of a range of dishonest and corrupt behaviours. Using answers to these questions, we created a 0 to 100 index to measure tolerance of corruption in the country and labelled it the Social Acceptability of Corruption (SAoC) Index. A high score on the index signifies a high tolerance for corrupt behaviour.

The average SAoC Index score was 27; only a minority (25%) of the general public had a zero-tolerance view of corruption. Further data analysis revealed that a majority of the adult population denounced corrupt behaviour as unjustifiable to at least some extent. But troublingly, we found that a minority viewed it as permissible.

Our data analysis revealed major drivers underlying the SAoC Index, and this data can help inform anti-corruption interventions. Research showed that civic values (such as responsibility and altruism) were linked to zero tolerance for corruption.

Encouraging reflective and discerning civic patriotic values (eg loyalty to constitutional principles), which acknowledge both the strengths and shortcomings of the country, would be effective for cultivating a culture of zero tolerance. In addition, we found that exposure to bribe solicitation by public officials made people more tolerant of corruption. Efforts, therefore, to curb bribe-seeking behaviour among public officials will be crucial to decreasing tolerance of corruption.

We also recommend that messaging aimed at reducing tolerance of corruption among the populace should emphasise the detrimental impact of corruption.

However, caution must be exercised to avoid inadvertently normalising corrupt practices by unnecessarily emphasising their prevalence. Raising awareness of the harm caused by corruption should be accompanied by reports of success in promoting integrity and preventing and combating corruption.

Public support for codes of silence norms

We also found widespread codes of silence social norms in South Africa. These norms refer to the perceived “immorality” of reporting the criminal behaviour of people you know personally to the authorities.

This finding presents a challenge to the Nacs goal of promoting integrity, societal transparency and accountability. Failing to report on the unethical or criminal activities of others not only hampers law enforcement’s ability to uncover and prosecute wrongdoing, but also perpetuates unethical and illegal behaviour. Codes of silence norms, in other words, help normalise corrupt practices.

To measure codes of silence social norms, we constructed a Support for Codes of Silence (SfCoS) Index. The Index ranged from 0 to 100 with a higher value indicating a greater level of support for codes of silence norms.

The average SfCoS Index score was 69 and we found that support for codes of silence norms cuts across traditional class and race lines in South Africa. Average SfCoS Index scores were high for most socio-demographic groups in South Africa.

Understanding public support for codes of silence norms

Our data analysis identified major predictors of the SfCoS Index, and this data can be used to design communication interventions to reduce codes of silence social norms. Our analysis showed that encouraging civic nationalism (ie loyalty to constitutional supremacy and the non-discriminatory application of its values and principles) may be quite effective in combating codes of silence norms.

We also found that recent experiences of public sector corruption were positively related to stronger codes of silence norms. We postulate that this could be because these experiences drive pessimism about state capacity to deliver services equitably. Lowering levels of bribe solicitation by public officials, therefore, will help to reduce codes of silence norms.

Patriarchy and sexual corruption

South Africa is currently participating in our annual campaign against gender-based violence (GBV). In a subsequent article, we’ll discuss our study’s findings on the prevalence of patriarchal and misogynist attitudes and the level of sexual corruption or “sextortion”. DM

Dr Steven Gordon is a senior research specialist and advocate Gary Pienaar is a research associate. Both are with the Developmental, Capable and Ethical State (DCES) research division of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC).

Categories:

South Africa

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...