Many have accused Donald Trump of setting new precedents on conflicts of interest, favoritism, and abuse of office—conducting what have traditionally been labeled “corrupt transactions” in plain sight. Similar dynamics appear elsewhere: In Mexico, conflicts of interest are reported and never denied, then resolved by investigators answerable to the authorities being investigated; and in India, political finance has been legally made anonymous, a reform openly defended by its proponents. Does the current global context represent a turning point for theories on corruption and transparency?
This panel asks two sets of questions. First, is the growing prevalence of flagrant political abuses a new behavioral paradigm or old wine in new bottles? Whether or not abuses are strictly legal, their flagrant nature defies traditional assumptions surrounding corruption and favoritism; conduct once concealed and deemed unacceptable is now transparent, flaunted, and defended, ostensibly serving as a source of legitimation rather than a call to sanction.
A second set of questions concerns measurement. Three decades of increasingly sophisticated indicators rest on the assumption that corruption is hidden and clandestine, even as it has become more flagrant and transparent. Surveys that gauge lived experiences count bribes, yet people may view them as “business as usual” rather than instances of extortion; and procurement red flags signaling risks and directed contracts are no longer investigated or treated as violations but rather legalized favoritism. Perception indices may register opinions, but in the current ethical upheaval there may be a mismatch between the perceptions of corruption and the law. Should measurement adapt to a world in which traditionally corrupt acts are not treated as unlawful or condemnable by dint of neglect, forbearance, or willful blindness?
We invite theoretical, conceptual, and empirical papers. Topics include conspicuous corruption and its relation to covert forms; ostentation, impunity, and the public justification of corruption; AI and corruption; measurement and governance indicators; transparency and disclosure regimes; conflicts of interest; and accountability mechanisms under conditions of visibility. Historical, comparative, qualitative and quantitative work is equally welcome, as are contributions grounded in scholarly traditions outside the Anglo-Nordic mainstream. Comparisons across the North-South divide are especially encouraged.
