Special Issue of Asia Pacific Business Review

Corruption – the abuse of entrusted power for private gain – dates back to the dawn of human history. A multifaceted phenomenon, corruption manifests itself in often subtle, convoluted ways including bribery, extortion, embezzlement, graft, collusion, or so-called ‘traditional’ forms (nepotism, cronyism) – typically facilitated by a lack of transparency and accountability in government operations. The negative consequences of corruption are well-documented, instanced by environmental degradation, social and political instability, economic under-development, poor competitiveness and the discrediting of both private and public organizations.

Although corruption exists wherever there is organized human life, a wide consensus of commentators continue to report markedly higher levels of (e.g.) bribery, kickbacks, cronyism and nepotism across Asia as compared to the ‘developed’ Anglo-European West. However, whereas during the economic boom years of the 1980s–90s corruption in Asia was largely tolerated, in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis investors were to assess its corrosive impacts anew. A spate of research to emerge in the post-crisis years attests to the widespread, deeply-rooted, well-organized and tolerated existence of corruption – centred for the most part at the confluence of business, bureaucratic and political interests. Add to this the ongoing external forces of globalization and internal pressures for democratization across the region and public awareness about the effects of corruption has increased, with many practices once seen as part of business-as-usual now regarded as unacceptable.

Yet despite these developments, despite the admonitions and initiatives from the likes of the World Bank, IMF, OECD and so forth, the challenges of controlling corruption in corporate Asia remain arguably as formidable as ever. Its persistence in business, amplifying cost, risk and uncertainty continues to be demonstrated as many so-called reforms put in place at the corporate level have not been followed through (see Dela Rama and Rowley 2017).

Against this backdrop, how much do we understand about corruption in business organizations in Asia? While research continues to refine our knowledge of the broad contours of corruption and its existence at pan-industry levels, the primarily macro-focus of this work means that at the level of the organization the literature is rife with inconsistencies and inconclusive results. Much remains either underexplored or in need of development at both empirical and theoretical level.

Asia Pacific Business Review is calling for theoretical and empirical contributions to a special edition on corruption, corrupting and corruptors in corporate Asia. This special issue intends to venture deeper into the antecedents, nature of, manifestations, consequences (primary/secondary, etc.) of corruption in business organizations in a changing Asia – as well as efforts to prevent, manage and redress it. We see substantial room for contributions which deepen and refine our theory and knowledge regarding the dynamics and mechanics of corruption based on actual organizational experience. We see an especial need for more micro-level, qualitative, interpretive work to help identify and understand the various factors that, on the ground, in combination, explain corruption.

The journal welcomes interesting and informative studies on any aspect of this topic. Areas for focus can include – but are not limited to – the following:

What is the continuing role of ‘Asian culture’ (usually couched in terms of Confucian values) in the manifestation of corruption in a globalizing, corporate Asia? Many argue that the crisis of 1997–8 was merely one manifestation of the deeply-embedded Confucianist-grounded normalization of patronage, clientelism, favouritism, partiality, something which is seen as inherent and incurable. Conversely, other evidence suggests that as managerial work values in Asia evolve in the wake of globalization (etc.) the nature of corrupt practices is changing. In this context what is the significance of the recently noted concepts of ‘pragmatic corruption’, ‘contained corruption’, and ‘responsible cronyism’ both for indigenous, Asian and non-Asian/Western companies?

What are the moderating influences of size of the organization and the nature of industry/business? For example, the extent to which bribery may be forced on smaller firms but a part of strategy for the larger ones? (Zhou and Peng 2012).

How, why and to what extent are recent theory developments concerning corruption valid as applied and explored in the Asian context? This might include proposed typological frames which distinguish between corruption manifest as the organization of corrupt individuals (OCI) on the one hand and a CO (corrupt organization) on the other in the Asian context (e.g. Pinto, Leana, and Pil 2008).

How should foreign MNCs with bases in Asia – as well as other organizations engaged in cross-national brand building activities – manage corruption? International corporations can play a very important role in combating corruption, but this often means walking a tightrope. How do they balance pressures to perform well locally (e.g. sales/profitability) through ‘playing the game’ on the one hand while remaining true to their brand identities (e.g. espoused in codes of conduct and ethical guidelines) on the other? We are especially interested in empirical work particularly from newly opening economies such as Myanmar, Indonesia, India, and China where huge sectors in the economy are being shifted from the public to private sectors, with all the opportunity and challenge which this presents.

How should business organizations in Asia combat corruption? Research to date is patchy and we see room for greater empirical and theoretical detail and depth. How can foreign MNCs – in particular – try to avoid becoming compromised, ‘spotting’ the major danger signs in advance? To what extent are employee awareness programs and codes of conduct useful in shaping or reshaping employee attitudes concerning ‘acceptable’ business conduct? What role can leaders play in fighting corruption by example and developing practices to prevent seduction? What might constitute a ‘culturally-intelligent’ guideline for managing corruption?

What are the links between corruption and the functioning of an organization’s practices, processes and even structure? Concerning internal stakeholders we invite studies which explore linkages between motivation, results and compensation and corruption within the organization, as well as the manifestations of corruption in recruitment, appraisal, dismissal, retention, as well as accounting. As regards external stakeholder relations, we welcome work exploring customer relations, government relations, agency and partner engagement, accreditation and accreditation agencies and so forth.

Finally, we welcome articles which review and explicate the literature, theories and many unique methodological challenges to researching corruption, a topic that through its very nature is difficult to explore and even harder to measure. These might include aspects such as survey social desirability bias, the need for creative surrogate measures, local grounding, anonymity and disguise, ethicality, fear of reprisals, recording issues, access issues, location challenges, and motivation issues (malicious, revenge, etc). How should these issues be tackled and what are some of the moderating factors?

Timelines and structure

Abstract submission:  1 September 2017

Full paper submission: 1 February 2018

Papers will be double-blind refereed and must meet commonly accepted academic standards of scholarly research and publication.

See journal’s website regarding style requirements and ALL sections needed: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=fapb20&page=instructions#.V3eLN-yECWU.

Please email expressions of interest and papers to Guest Editors below:

Professor Chris Rowley

Email: [email protected]

Dr Tim G. Andrews

Email: [email protected]