Corruption discourse and modern state legitimation – a historical comparison of Britain and Germany
View/ Open
Booker2017.docx (1.224Mb)
Date
05/07/2017Item status
Restricted AccessAuthor
Booker, Martin
Metadata
Abstract
This thesis examines the way in which corruption discourses are embedded in processes of
state formation. It builds on the theoretical premise of social constructionism, namely that
‘corruption’ is not an entity that exists in reality but that it is an agreed-upon classification of
certain types of behaviours. These processes of social and political construction are
foundational for corruption discourse, conceptualised as a political practice through which
the legitimacy of power and authority, of either persons, behaviours or institutions, can be
challenged. As a socially and politically constructed entity, corruption discourse is shaped by
political processes and in turn also shapes political processes. The comparison of corruption
discourses in Britain in the 19th century and in Germany in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries
endeavours to demonstrate the different ways in which they were shaped, as well as in turn
shaped, contextual state formation processes. The two countries represent two different
pathways through which high levels of corruption control were achieved, one democratic,
the other authoritarian. While anti-corruption measures in Britain were introduced alongside
democratisation processes in the 19th century, various German states implemented
measures top-down in their 18th century efforts to modernise state administration.
This study looks at the times when corruption discourses became a matter of public interest,
and traces their role vis-a-vis subsequent institutional developments. In Britain this starting
point is located in the early 19th century, in Germany in the Kaiserreich of the 1870s. Three
case studies each exemplify and illustrate the different sequences in which corruption
discourse unfolded. In Britain, these are the 1809 Duke of York case, exemplifying a
‘discovery phase’, in which corruption discourse first showed signs of becoming weaponised
for political discourse; the 1830 to 32 Electoral Reform discourse exemplifying a
‘contestation phase’ in which corruption allegations were strategically used to undermine
the legitimacy of Parliament and the system through which it was elected; and the 1889
Corrupt Practices Act discourse, exemplifying a ‘consolidation phase’ in which anticorruption
measures became normalised rather than being subject to contest. In Germany,
the 1896/97 Tausch Affair represents a different kind of discovery phase, one that is
restrained and corrupted by authoritarian intervention; the Erzberger-Helfferich case of
1919 represents a different kind of contestation phase, one that is characterised by the
hyper-mobilisation of corruption discourse that contributed to the eventual failure of the
Weimar Republic; and the Spiegel Affair of 1962, in the context of the Spiegel’s role in post-war
Germany more broadly, represents a successful consolidation phase in the
Bundesrepublik, in which authoritarian intervention failed to corrupt corruption discourse.
The cases thus highlight different ways in which corruption discourse was shaped by, and in
turn shaped, state formation processes. They showcase a range of different institutional and
political framework conditions as well as a variety of institutional outcomes, of reform,
consolidation and destruction. The thesis argues that corruption discourse was thus a central
driver of state formation processes, and that concepts of corruption were integral to the idea
of the modern state.