{"title":"制度腐败:从目的到功能","authors":"P. Taylor","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2417066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In \"Institutional Corruption: A Fiduciary Theory,\" Marie Newhouse argues that the distinctive value of the IC concept attaches only to a proper subset of the uses that we now find in the literature, and that many of these uses are not about institutional corruption (IC) at all. She suggests that we limit IC talk to analyses of fiduciary relationships, and use other concepts and approaches to examine institutional failures that do not involve fiduciary duties. This plea for theoretical parsimony is valuable in its execution and laudable in its intent, but it needlessly sets aside common intuitions about what \"institutional corruption\" is, and it needlessly constrains the scope of the theoretical and political work that IC analyses can do. I will argue that a small refinement in IC theory — focusing not just on institutional purposes but also on social functions — will allow us to save these intuitions while also clarifying the political stakes of anti-corruption work.","PeriodicalId":208075,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Distributive & Economic Justice","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Corruption: From Purpose to Function\",\"authors\":\"P. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2417066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In \\\"Institutional Corruption: A Fiduciary Theory,\\\" Marie Newhouse argues that the distinctive value of the IC concept attaches only to a proper subset of the uses that we now find in the literature, and that many of these uses are not about institutional corruption (IC) at all. She suggests that we limit IC talk to analyses of fiduciary relationships, and use other concepts and approaches to examine institutional failures that do not involve fiduciary duties. This plea for theoretical parsimony is valuable in its execution and laudable in its intent, but it needlessly sets aside common intuitions about what \\\"institutional corruption\\\" is, and it needlessly constrains the scope of the theoretical and political work that IC analyses can do. I will argue that a small refinement in IC theory — focusing not just on institutional purposes but also on social functions — will allow us to save these intuitions while also clarifying the political stakes of anti-corruption work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PRN: Distributive & Economic Justice\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PRN: Distributive & Economic Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2417066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRN: Distributive & Economic Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2417066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
在《制度性腐败:一种信托理论》(Institutional Corruption: A fiducary Theory)中,玛丽·纽豪斯(Marie Newhouse)认为,制度性腐败概念的独特价值只体现在我们现在在文献中发现的一些适当的用途上,而且其中许多用途根本与制度性腐败(IC)无关。她建议我们将IC的讨论限制在对信托关系的分析上,并使用其他概念和方法来研究不涉及信托责任的制度失败。这种对理论上的节俭的请求在执行上是有价值的,在其意图上是值得称赞的,但它不必要地搁置了关于什么是“机构腐败”的共同直觉,并且它不必要地限制了IC分析可以做的理论和政治工作的范围。我认为,对廉政理论稍加改进——不仅关注制度目的,也关注社会功能——将使我们能够挽救这些直觉,同时澄清反腐败工作的政治利害关系。
Institutional Corruption: From Purpose to Function
In "Institutional Corruption: A Fiduciary Theory," Marie Newhouse argues that the distinctive value of the IC concept attaches only to a proper subset of the uses that we now find in the literature, and that many of these uses are not about institutional corruption (IC) at all. She suggests that we limit IC talk to analyses of fiduciary relationships, and use other concepts and approaches to examine institutional failures that do not involve fiduciary duties. This plea for theoretical parsimony is valuable in its execution and laudable in its intent, but it needlessly sets aside common intuitions about what "institutional corruption" is, and it needlessly constrains the scope of the theoretical and political work that IC analyses can do. I will argue that a small refinement in IC theory — focusing not just on institutional purposes but also on social functions — will allow us to save these intuitions while also clarifying the political stakes of anti-corruption work.