Doctoral Candidate, Philosophy Department & Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Traditional views tend to identify the problem of corruption in the dishonesty of public officials. The main purpose of the research is to recover Montesquieu’s view of corruption and show that there are at least two different causes of corrupt behaviors. In The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu distinguishes “two kinds of corruption: one, when the people do not observe the laws, the other when they are corrupted by the laws; the latter is an incurable ill because it lies in the remedy itself.” Recent studies about Montesquieu’s account of corruption do not pay much attention to this distinction. This paper unpacks the two kinds of corruption. The first kind tracks a problem of individuals who use their public office for private gain. The second track is the deficiency of the laws that contradict social behaviors and, therefore, are obeyed exclusively out of fear and violated whenever possible. The distinction is relevant to the anti-corruption literature because it implies two different ways to eradicate corruption. Corruption as a problem of individuals can be solved with better enforcement of the law: improving monitoring systems, better rewards for honesty, or higher punishments. Personal corruption can be dealt with what Celine Spector calls “a legislative arsenal.” However, improving enforcement mechanisms is unlikely to solve the problem in corrupting laws, given that people violate the law due to the high standards that it imposes on them. The solution for the second kind of corruption is to remove or modify the corrupting law. Montesquieu promoted the separation of powers and the spirit of moderation in the legislators to avoid corrupting laws. The result of this investigation is the importance of distinguishing between the situations in which more coercion can eradicate corruption and those in which more force against corruption leads to despotism.
Keywords: Corruption, Legislation, Moderation, Montesquieu, Separation of Powers, Spirit of the Laws.
JEL Classification: B12, D73.
Cite as: Juarez-Garcia, M.I. (2020). Personal Corruption & Corrupting Laws: Montesquieu’s Twofold Theory of Corruption. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(4), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.4(4).76-83.2020
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
- Althusser, L. (1958). Montesquieu, la Politique et l’Histoire. [Montesquieu, Politics and History]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 944 p. Available at: https://www.persee.fr/doc/rfsp_0035-2950_1960_num_10_4_392603_t1_0944_0000_002.
- Aron, R. (1965). Main Currents in Sociological Thought. New York: Basic Books.
- Boesche, R. (1990). Fearing Monarchs and Merchants: Montesquieu’s Two Theories of Despotism. The Western Political Quarterly, 43(4), 741-761. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300405.
- Carrese, P. (2016). Democracy in Moderation: Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Sustainable Liberalism. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316392775.
- Ceva, E. & Ferretti, M.P. (2018). Political Corruption, Individual Behavior and the Quality of Institutions. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 17, 216-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X17732067.
- Funderburg, J. (2014). Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 421 p. Available at: https://franklin.library.upenn.edu/catalog/FRANKLIN_9962113233503681.
- Gilmore, N. & Vickie, S. (2017). Montesquieu’s Teachings of the Dangers of Extreme Corrections: Japan, the Catholic Inquisition, and Moderation. The Spirit of the Laws, American Political Science Review, 111(3), 460-470. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000107[Opens in a new window].
- Hasnas, J. (2006). Trapped: When Acting Ethically Is Against the Law. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. 120 p. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/532644/trapped-when-acting-ethically-is-against-the-law-pdf.
- Huntington, S. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Available at: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/gov2126/files/huntington_political_order_changing_soc.pdf.
- Jesseph, D. (1996). Hobbes and the method of natural science. The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Edited by Tom Sorell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521410193.
- Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961721[Opens in a new window].
- Krause, S. (2002). The Uncertain Inevitability of Decline. Political Theory, 30(5), 709-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591702030005004.
- Kurkchiyan, M. (2003). The Illegitimacy of Law in Post-Soviet Societies. Law and Informal Practices: The Post-Communist Experience, edited by D. Galligan and M. Kurkchiyan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199259366.001.0001.
- LeDoux, J. (2013). The Slippery Slope of Fear. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17(4), 155-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.004.
- Mackie, G. (2018). Effective Rule of Law Requires Construction of a Social Norm of Legal Obedience, in Cultural Agents Reloaded: The Legacy of Antanas Mockus, edited by C. Tognato. Cambridge, MA: The Cultural Agents Initiative at Harvard University Press. pp. 313-334.
- Madison, J.  (2001). The Federalist. No. 47 in The Federalist Papers, edited by G. W. Carey and J. McClellan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 249-255. Available at: https://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf.
- Montesquieu  (2017). Persian Letters, Translation by S. Warner, and S. Douard. Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press. Available at: https://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/persian-letters/.
- Montesquieu  (2018). The Spirit of the Laws translated and edited by A. Cohler, B. Miller, H. Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/507216?selectedversion=NBD10203410.
- Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2013). Controlling Corruption Through Collective Action. Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2013.0020.
- Nye, J. (1967). Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. The American Political Science Review, 61(2), 417-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953254.
- Okonjo-Iweala, N. (2017). Fighting Corruption is Dangerous. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11131.001.0001.
- Robin, C. (2000). Reflections on Fear: Montesquieu in Retrieval. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586016[Opens in a new window].
- Shklar, J. (1987). Montesquieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 144 p. Available at: https://www.passeidireto.com/arquivo/81306985/judith-n-shklar-montesquieu-oxford-university-press-usa-1987/23.
- Sparling, R. (2017). Montesquieu on Corruption: Civic Purity in Post-Republican World. In Kellow, G. and Leddy, N. (Eds.), On Civic Republicanism (pp. 167-170). University of Toronto Press. Available at: https://utorontopress.com/us/on-civic-republicanism-3.
- Spector, C. (2013). Corruption, translated by P. Stewart, in A Montesquieu Dictionary, directed by C. Volpilhac-Auger. Available at: http://dictionnaire-montesquieu.ens-lyon.fr/en/article/1376473889/en. Accessed 23 November 2020.
- Rose-Ackerman, S. & Palifka, B. (2016). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139962933.
- Tullock, G. (1996). Corruption Theory and Practice. Contemporary Economic Policy, 14(3), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1996.tb00619.x.
- United Nations (2004). The Global Program Against Corruption: UN anti-corruption toolkit. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/the-global-programme-against-corruption-un-anti-corruption-toolkit. Accessed October 2019.
- Warren, M. (2004). What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy? American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 328-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00073.x.