South Africa is not alone in striving to address public sector corruption, which has been allowed to flourish over centuries of governance. Countries all over the world – yes, even those at the top of the Corruption Perceptions Index – struggle with the relentless tide of bribery, malfeasance, extortion, and more, that is sweeping over them.
This is a long-standing global problem and in our case, let’s make it clear up front – corruption in South Africa did not start in 1994, as many believe. It was present from the days of the Dutch colonisation of the Cape, way back in the 17th century, and became more and more entrenched during all the different governments since then, up to the present democratic dispensation where it is now viewed as endemic.
For anti-corruption initiatives to be impactful and sustainable, especially in situations of systemic or endemic corruption, there is more to be considered than meets the eye. This is the view of the Corruption, Justice and Literacy Program (CJL) which, in its 2024 report titled The Role of Social Norms in Bureaucratic Corruption: A Research-to-Practice Report, aims to address a burning question – “Why have decades of efforts to address civil service corruption yielded little lasting change?”
CJL works in several African countries, engaging with practitioners, policymakers, and academics across sectors and regions, “with the goal of unlocking the barriers to effective and durable development caused by corrupt patterns of behaviour”.
Literature review
The research-to-practice report, says CJL, has its roots in a 2023 literature review titled Civil Servants, Social Norms, and Corruption: What do we know? What do we do? That earlier publication tackled two questions:
- What do we know about the social norms that drive corrupt behaviours among civil servants in contexts of endemic corruption?
- In these contexts, what do we know about how to change the social norms that drive corruption among civil servants?
In so doing, it aimed to plug the gap between the existing knowledge and recognition of how social norms influence corrupt behaviours, and a comprehensive review of the research on the nexus of civil servants, social norms, and corruption – which was lacking. By connecting these two aspects, CJL says, measures can be developed to more efficiently address the outlying aspects which are not traditionally considered.
“The literature review found robust evidence that social norms can drive corrupt practices among civil servants in contexts of endemic corruption,” says CJL. “When left unaddressed, these social norms can undermine gains made by conventional anti-corruption, public sector reform, and civil service professionalisation efforts.”
South Africa has recently embarked on its own civil service professionalisation initiative, the framework for which was published in October 2022 and is currently being rolled out across government. It envisions a public service characterised by professionalisation, rather than merely professionalism. “Being professional and professionalism encompass the practices, conduct, values, and behaviour that a person exhibits regardless of training, qualifications, and levels of responsibility. The concept of professionalisation, on the other hand, is about changing individual attitudes, behaviour, and performance towards serving the public.”
To facilitate this process, the National Assembly passed the Public Administration Management Amendment Bill and the Public Service Amendment Bill in 2024, while the Department of Public Service and Administration continues to report to Parliament on progress.
Powerful, unseen influence
The oft-used approach to anti-corruption – based on distinguished anti-corruption practitioner Robert Klitgaard’s formula of C = M + D – A, or ‘Corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability’ – only addresses part of the problem, says CJL. “This approach ignores power dynamics and leaves many of the other factors stemming from the informal rules driving corruption – the so-called real rules of the game – unchanged.”
The Social Norms report (not the literature review) found seven key factors at play:
- Formal and informal rules influence civil servants’ behaviour.
- Social norms can lead civil servants to engage in corrupt behaviours or to block efforts to prevent, Investigate, or sanction corrupt practices.
- Ignoring informal rules – especially social norms – may limit the effectiveness of your work or cause it to backfire.
- Civil servants face competing expectations of how to behave from individuals and groups within and outside the civil service.
- Civil servants have limits to their power and ability to behave differently.
- There are common overarching indirect social norms linked to corrupt behaviours.
- Addressing bureaucratic corruption will probably require a multi-faceted program with social norms as one stream among several.
“Social norms matter to bureaucratic corruption because, along with formal rules, they influence civil servants’ behavioural choices. This includes whether or not they engage in corrupt behaviours or obstruct anti-corruption efforts. Pursuing behaviour change among civil servants without exploring the role social norms play in maintaining those corrupt behaviours will probably not reduce corruption.”
Formal rules do matter, says CJL, but they are not the sole driver of civil servants’ behaviour. Whether conventions (the various innovative ways civil servants navigate illogical or obstructive formal rules and ‘get the job done’) or social norms (the mutually held expectations within a group about the appropriate way to behave in a given situation), these unwritten rules exert a powerful influence, to the extent that they often become the real rules of the game.
Social norms are enforced primarily through social rewards such as trust or praise, or punishment such as ostracism or shame. These consequences are dealt out by the individual’s reference group – people such as departmental colleagues, whose opinion on a particular issue or practice is important to the individual.
“Complicating matters is the fact that all civil servants belong to multiple groups simultaneously, and which groups’ expectations influence behaviour depends on the issue and situation.”
CJL’s evidence suggests that individual attitudes, laws, or formal internal rules and procedures may exert less of an influence on behaviour than do the social norms. Furthermore, the latter have the potential to undermine the sustainability of behavioural change programs, because of the pressure to act in line with a social norm – whether a person personally believes certain corrupt acts are morally wrong, or not.
“Social norms influence behaviour because of the innate human desire to belong to a group, such as one’s peers, kin or community, or work colleagues.”
Overcoming these challenges
Therefore, for anti-corruption efforts to have the maximum desired effect, says CJL, they need to consider not only the formal rules and structures, but must also delve into what role, if any, social norms play in driving a corrupt behaviour or blocking reform efforts.
Anti-corruption practitioners must dig below the surface, CJL adds. When analysing a situation, it’s not just the standard operating procedures and manuals that matter, but also the hidden, unwritten informal rules that shape and control behaviour behind the scenes.
In designing anti-corruption programmes, it is vital to establish the existence of and identify reference groups and the type of influence they exert. Here, talking directly to civil servants within the service will be invaluable. “Ensuring men and women are involved in those discussions is important too as this will uncover whether gender norms are altering the impact of the social norm.”
If groundwork is not done thoroughly, anti-corruption programmes may appear to be working for a time, but in the background the social norms will continue to exert pressure to revert to prior practices and in time, will prevail.
“For example, paying adequate wages is a common public sector reform aimed at reducing bureaucratic corruption. However, research shows that increasing wages without also addressing the social pressures that are influencing civil servants to engage in corrupt practices will not necessarily reduce corruption in the long term.”
