Social Bribes or Favors? The Blurring Boundary in Relationships

Corruption is often defined as the misuse of power for personal gain, which can also stem from social dynamics like nepotism (Jancsics, 2019). Corruption is often divided into grand and petty forms (e.g., Jain, 2001; Jancsics, 2019; Rose-Ackerman, 1999, 2018). While grand corruption involves high-level actors and substantial benefits, petty corruption occurs on a smaller scale and is rooted in everyday interactions and interpersonal relationships (Jain, 2001). The term “petty” doesn’t diminish its significance; rather, it highlights the scale difference between minor interactions and large-scale corruption (Rose-Ackerman, 2018). In fact, the cumulative impact of petty corruption can negatively affect well-being, morality, trust, and economic development in organizational life and society generally. Jain (2001) notes that petty corruption often escalates from small benefits to larger payments.

Petty corruption often revolves around the misuse or abuse of power in everyday interactions. Common examples include lower- or mid-level personnel, such as healthcare professionals, accepting small bribes or favors in exchange for altering their behavior—for instance, expediting, enhancing, or reducing the cost of a service (Graycar, 2015; Praspaliauskiene, 2016). Paradoxically, healthcare professionals who accept bribes may lack the ability to deliver the expected outcomes, even though those offering the bribes may believe otherwise. Additionally, offering a bribe or a favor may lead to heightened expectations of service quality from the individual, which may be unrealistic and ultimately unfulfilled.

Building on the concept of petty corruption as a specific relationship between parties (Jancsics, 2019), it is proposed here that such relationships in organizational life can be conceptualized into three primary forms:

• calculative exchanges,
• social bribes/favors, and
• unethical behaviors.

Petty corruption can be understood as calculative exchanges between parties, characterized by impersonal, transactional relationships where both seek to maximize their benefits. Jancsics (2019) highlights that a defining feature of this form of corruption is the absence of close social bonds between the parties. This form of petty corruption is instrumental and economically driven, occurring when individuals calculate that the potential gains outweigh the risks of engaging in illegal activities. For example, a healthcare professional might accept a small bribe to prioritize a patient’s appointment, considering the immediate reward worth the potential risk of punishment. Other examples from the healthcare sector can include paying for preferential treatment and offering kickbacks for expected higher service.

The key mechanism in calculative exchanges is that decision-making is shaped by a cost-benefit analysis, where individuals weigh potential rewards against possible consequences. Castro et al. (2020) argue that corruption viewed as a calculative exchange involves utility maximizers, a perspective common in economics and political science, focusing on the transactional nature of illegal exchanges. Petty corruption in healthcare organizations is influenced by factors such as low salaries, weak control systems, a low risk of detection, poor management and leadership, opaque processes, and service monopolies (Jain, 2001; Castro et al., 2020).

Calculative exchanges are considered illegal acts that should be punished; however, the severity of the punishment may vary depending on the legislation and its application in different societal contexts. While the calculative perspective typically overlooks emotions, the PULSE project emphasizes the significance of the emotional viewpoint in understanding corrupt behavior. Emotions such as satisfaction and relief when a desired exchange is achieved, as well as fear of being caught, facing legal consequences, or receiving formal organizational punishments, can strongly influence corrupt practices. Additionally, Jancsics (2019) highlights that greed plays a role in calculative exchanges.

Petty corruption can also take the form of social bribes or favors, occurring among socially connected individuals—such as family, friends, or colleagues—who share trust and loyalty (You, 2018). Unlike the calculative form, this type is driven by reciprocal social exchanges, mutual benefits, and gift-giving (Graycar & Jancsics, 2017). While material benefits may play a role, nonmaterial, emotionally charged factors—such as care, gratitude, prestige, trust, honor, recognition, and fear of rejection—often hold greater significance. This form of corruption is rooted in social networks and obligations rather than financial gain. In healthcare, for example, an employee might prioritize a colleague’s family member for a medical procedure in exchange for favorable treatment during a performance review, or a patient may use a close friendship with a doctor to receive a desired service.

Social bribes or favors are a subtler form of petty corruption, driven by social ties rather than economic transactions. In healthcare organizations and related professional communities (e.g., medical doctors’ association), when petty corruption is present, accepting small favors may become a normalized, culturally tolerated practice (Castro et al., 2020; Jancsics, 2019, 2024). These behaviors are often unacknowledged, institutionalized, and difficult to criticize or change, as newcomers are typically taught, often implicitly, to view them as acceptable (Ashforth & Anand, 2003).

Perceptions of appropriate social interactions vary across social contexts and societies, making the boundary between social bribes and social favors blurred. On one hand, such acts may be seen as polite gestures—tokens of appreciation for someone who has provided help. On the other hand, they can be perceived as social bribes, crossing ethical boundaries and being deemed inappropriate and corrupt. For example, in China, guanxi—social relationships to build trust—illustrates the fine line between acceptable and unacceptable social bribes and favors (Nie & Lämsä, 2015). Similar phenomena, such as blat in Russia, wasta in the Middle East, and old boys’ networks in Western societies, illustrate how cultural context influences whether a relationship is perceived as bribery or as polite gift-giving and reciprocity. While calculative exchanges are universally seen as illegal, social bribes and favors are judged based on the norms of the socio-cultural environment (Torsello & Venard, 2016). Without understanding the cultural context, distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable favors can be challenging. Torsello (2015, 2024) notes that research on social bribes and favors often comes from anthropological and ethnographic studies, but argues that a relativistic perspective alone is insufficient to fully understand this form of petty corruption.

An ethical perspective challenges the relativistic stance in evaluating the acceptability of petty corruption. From this viewpoint, petty corruption is seen as unethical behaviors, emphasizing its nature as an ethical problem, wrongdoing, or hazard. This perspective highlights decision-making and actions in relationships that compromise ethical standards. Rooted in moral philosophy, this view emphasizes that corruption can be defined a priori based on agreed ethical principles, regardless of the situation or context (Castro et al., 2020). For example, Argandoña (2005) argues that corrupt behavior violates fundamental ethical principles such as honesty, integrity, fairness, and responsibility.

From the perspective of ethics, corruption is not just about financial or social dynamics; it is a deeply unethical act with negative implications. In healthcare, an example of petty corruption could be doctors prescribing unnecessary tests from a specific supplier in exchange for gifts or kickbacks. This compromises ethical principles like honesty and responsibility, prioritizing personal gain over patient well-being. Defining the ethical principles behind petty corruption can be challenging due to different moral philosophies offering varying foundations for what is ethical (Rose-Ackerman, 2018).

Many frameworks on unethical decision-making in organizational life distinguish between ‘bad apples’ (individual-level factors, such as low moral development) and ‘bad barrels’ (systemic issues, such as weak control systems) (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990). ‘Bad apples’ refer to individuals whose actions deviate from established ethical norms, leading to unethical behavior like petty corruption. From this perspective, healthcare professionals considered ‘bad apples’ may not recognize their behavior as unethical. They might feel gratitude if they perceive the exchange as a gesture of appreciation and a normal practice. Similarly, patients offering “gifts” may experience a sense of friendliness or even pride in giving what they see as a customary and expected gift.

In contrast, ‘bad barrels’ highlight how systemic factors, such as organizational culture and policies, shape unethical behavior. For example, a hospital’s management might tolerate petty corruption due to resource constraints. Healthcare professionals and patients who offer or accept bribes or kickbacks may experience guilt or shame if they recognize that they are compromising their integrity. They may also feel fear of exposure or reputational damage. From the ‘bad barrels’ perspective, unethical behavior is seen as undermining key ethical principles in healthcare, such as fairness, patient well-being, and professional integrity.

In this blog, I proposed three primary forms of petty corruption in everyday interactions and relationships in organizational life: calculative exchanges, social bribes/favors, and unethical behaviors. This framework lays the groundwork for further development and research. A key focus of the PULSE project is the ethical and emotional aspects of these behaviors, which require deeper exploration in both research and discussions of petty corruption.

As shown here, the understanding of acceptability and ethics of petty corruption depend on the underlying framework used to discuss and evaluate them. To overcome the limitations of a one-sided approach, I argue that addressing petty corruption requires a multidisciplinary perspective. In practice, anti-corruption initiatives in organizations must be planned and implemented at both strategic and operational levels, driven by strong leadership and stakeholder collaboration. Moreover, the proposed framework suggests that the mechanisms behind different forms of petty corruption vary, requiring tailored approaches for each. However, broader initiatives remain essential to addressing widespread petty corruption, particularly in sectors like healthcare.

1. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 1-52.
2. Castro, A., Phillips, N., & Ansari, S. (2020). Corporate corruption: A review and an agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 935-968.
3. European Commission, Brussels (2022). Eurobarometer 97.2 (2022). GESIS, Cologne. ZA7887 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14033.). Eurobarometer 97.2 (2022). GESIS, Cologne. ZA7887 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14033.
4. Graycar, A. (2015). Corruption: Classification and analysis. Policy and Society, 34(2), 87-96.
5. Graycar, A., & Jancsics, D. (2017). Gift giving and corruption. International journal of public administration, 40(12), 1013-1023.
6. Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of economic surveys, 15(1), 71-121.
7. Jancsics, D. (2019). Corruption as resource transfer: An interdisciplinary synthesis. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 523-537.
8. Jancsics, D. (2024). Organization and organizationality of corruption. Sociology Compass, 18(7), e13254.
9. Nie, D., & Lämsä, A-M. (2015). The leader–member exchange theory in the Chinese context and the ethical challenge of guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 851-861.
10. Pakstaitis, L. (2019). Private sector corruption: realities, difficulties of comprehension, causes and perspectives. The Lithuanian approach. Crime, Law and Social Change, 72, 227-247.
11. Praspaliauskiene, R. (2016). Enveloped lives: Practicing health and care in Lithuania. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 30(4), 582-598.
12. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1997). Corruption and development. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1997: 93-114.
13. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2018). Corruption & purity. Daedalus, 147(3), 98-110.
14. Stepurko, T., Pavlova, M., Gryga, I., Murauskiene, L., & Groot, W. (2015). Informal payments for health care services: the case of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 6(1), 46-58.
15. Torsello, D. (2015). Corruption as social exchange: the view from anthropology. In Debates of corruption and integrity: Perspectives from Europe and the US (pp. 159-183). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
16. Torsello, D. (2024). Petty corruption. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Corruption and Society (pp. 251-254). Edward Elgar Publishing.
17. Torsello, D., & Venard, B. (2016). The anthropology of corruption. Journal of management inquiry, 25(1), 34-54.
18. Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied psychology, 75(4), 378-385.
19. You, J. S. (2018). Trust and corruption. In Eric M. Uslaner (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 473-496). New York: Oxford University Press.