Anti-corruption Policy as a Factor of Influence on Protest Potential and Stability in Modern Society

Introduction. The problem of corruption has acquired a particular importance in light of ubiquitous corruption scandals, entangling both developing and developed countries. Currently, a number of often contradicting hypotheses has been posed on the ways corrupt practices impact protest potential of a society and stability of a political system, as well as on the role of anti-corruption policy in the alleviation of such impact. This article aims to survey and compare different researches analyzing the impact of corruption and anti-corruption policies on different aspects of modern Russian society; in particular, their impact on protest potential and political stability. The author’s hypothesis lies within the assumption that The System anti-corruption policy, which is a prioritized instrument for political and administrative activities of state and municipal authorities in the prevention of corrupt practices, significantly reduces the extent of protest potential and facilitates political stability in a society.

Methodology and sources. Methodological basis of this article is a multiparadigm approach to studying the phenomenon of corruption. As part of this research, a raft of empirical research conducted by domestic and foreign authors has been analyzed (E. M. Uslaner, P. Heywood, J. Rose et al.). Authors also use the results of an internet survey conducted with 580 participants (predominantly students of Russian universities) in 2020. The respondents were self-selected, convenience sampling. Manifold research and sociological surveys demonstrate the difficulty of generalizing the results.

Results and discussion. Substantial amount of empirical data reflects an adverse effect of corrupt practices on the livelihood of a modern society. These practices entail the decrease in GDP growth rates, avert domestic and foreign investments, amplify social and economic inequality, decrease tax revenue and lead to social welfare underfunding. It ultimately results in the lack of public trust towards state institutions as well as the decrease of generalized trust. Even though there is a positive correlation between endemic corruption and political volatility, the results of other research cast doubt on the extent to which corruption may influence economic development and political stability.

Conclusion. In general, the conducted research has allowed for the inference that the prevalence of corrupt practices may either amplify social instability and increase the protest potential or it may have no influence at all on political activity of a society and stability of political regime. At the same time, the implementation of anti-corruption policies by the authorities significantly reduces the level of protest potential and fosters political stability.

1. Global poll: Corruption is world's most talked about problem (2019), BBC, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/12_december/09/corruption.shtml (accessed 04.04.2021).

2. Trevozhashchie problemy [Disturbing problems] (2019), Levada Center, available at: https://www.levada.ru/2019/09/25/trevozhashhie-problemy-2/ (accessed 04.04.2021).

3. Heywood, P. (2014), Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption, Routledge, London, UK.

4. Rose, J. (2018), “The Meaning of Corruption: Testing the Coherence and Adequacy of Corruption Definitions”, Public Integrity, vol. 20, iss. 3, pp. 220–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1397999.

5. Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 273-FZ of 25.12.2008 “On Combating Corruption” (rev. 03.11.2015) (2008), Rossiyskaya Gazeta Russian newspaper, no. 4823, available at: https://rg.ru/2008/12/30/korrupcia-fz-dok.html (accessed 01.08.2021).

6. Ugur, M. and Dasgupta, N. (2011), Evidence on the economic growth impacts of corruption in low-income countries and beyond: a systematic review, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, Univ. of London, London, UK.

7. Fisman, R. and Svensson, J. (2007), “Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence”, J. of Development Economics, vol. 83, iss. 1, pp. 63–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.09.009.

8. Svensson, J. (2003), “Who Must Pay Bribes and How Much? Evidence from a Cross Section of Firms”, The Quarterly J. of Economics, vol. 118, iss. 1, pp. 207–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535180.

9. Wei, S-J. (2000), “How Taxing is Corruption on International Investors?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 82, iss. 1, pp. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465300558533.

10. Uslaner, E.M. (2015), "The Consequences of Corruption", Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption, in Heywood, P.M. (ed.), Routledge, Abingdon, NY, UK, pp. 199–211.

11. De Jong, E. and Bogmans, C. (2011), “Does corruption discourage international trade?”, European J. of Political Economy, vol. 27, iss. 2, pp. 385–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.11.005.

12. Gupta, S. Davoodi, H. and Alonso-Terme, R. (2002), “Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty?”, Economics of Governance, vol. 3, iss. 1, pp. 23–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s101010100039.

13. Lavallée, Е. (2008), “Corruption and trust in political institutions in sub-Saharan Africa”, Afro Barome-ter, no. 102, available at: https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Working%20paper/AfropaperNo102.pdf (accessed 06.05.2021).

14. Bird, R., Martinez-Vazquez, J. and Torgler, B. (2008), “Tax Effort in Developing Countries and High In-come Countries: The Impact of Corruption, Voice and Accountability”, Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 38, iss. 1, pp. 55–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(08)50006-3.

15. De la Croix, D. and Delavallade, C. (2009), “Growth, public investment and corruption with failing in-stitutions”, Economics of Governance, vol. 10, iss. 3, pp. 187–219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-008-0057-4.

16. Clausen, B., Kraay, A. and Nyiri, Z. (2011), “Corruption and Confidence in Public Institutions: Evidence from a Global Survey”, The World Bank Economic Rew. vol. 25, iss. 2, pp. 212–249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhr018.

17. Basics of corruption and the justice sector, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, available at: https://www.u4.no/topics/justice-sector/basics (accessed 04.04.2021).

18. Habibov, N., Afandi, E. and Cheung, A. (2017), “Sand or grease? Corruption-institutional trust nexus in post-Soviet countries”, J. of Eurasian Studies, vol. 8, iss. 2, pp. 172–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2017.05.001.

19. Risks of corruption to state legitimacy and stability in fragile situations, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, available at: https://www.u4.no/publications/risks-of-corruption-to-state-legitimacy-and-stability-in-fragile-situations (accessed 04.04.2021).

20. Public financial management reforms in post-conflict countries: synthesis report, The World Bank, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/945231468340162289/Public-financial-management-reforms-in-post-conflict-countries-synthesis-report (accessed 04.04.2021).

21. Literature review on corruption in fragile states, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, available at: https://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/360_Literature_review_on_corruption_in_fragile_states.pdf (accessed 04.04.2021).

22. Le Billon, P. (2003), “Buying peace or fuelling war: the role of corruption in armed conflicts”, Journal of International Development, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 413–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.993.

23. Zakharov, A.V. (2012), “Struggle against ecological crime and corruption in the context of existence of modern global environmental challenges to mankind”, Tambov Univ. Rev. Ser.: Humanities, no. 11 (115), avail-able at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/borba-s-ekologicheskoy-prestupnostyu-i-korruptsiey-v-kontekste-suschestvovaniya-sovremennyh-globalnyh-ekologicheskih-vyzovov (accessed 17.04.2021).

24. Bădescu, G., Sum, P. and Uslaner, E. M. (2004), “Civil Society Development and Democratic Values in Romania and Moldova”, East European Politics and Societies, vol. 18, iss. 2, pp. 316–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325403259915.

25.