This is a response to a critique of a previously published article (Persson, Rothstein & Teorell 2013), in which the authors launched a new theory of corruption that they called the “collective action theory”, in their view better supported by the evidence than the dominant “principal-agent theory” of corruption.
In response, they reaffirm the key insights gained from collective action‐based approaches toward corruption: although corruption might solve individual‐level problems in the short term, it is still a de facto problem at the aggregate level, the tools derived from principal–agent theory will not solve the collective action problem of systemic corruption, and elites will be the least likely to implement reform.
Learn more on onlinelibrary.wiley.com