Religion and attitudes towards corruption in India and Nigeria

Religion and attitudes towards corruption in India and Nigeria Dr Heather Marquette, International Development Department, School of Government & Society Seminar at Quality of Government Institute, University of Göteborg, 26 September 2011 Background to the project Part of a 5 year (2005-2010) DFID-funded RPC on ‘Religions and Development’ (www.rad.bham.ac.uk) • UoB lead institution (Profs Carole Rakodi & Gurharpal Singh), with additional partners in UK & 4 focus countries – India, Nigeria, Pakistan & Tanzania • RaD officially finished in March 2011 and is in final dissemination stage • WP – ‘Religion & attitudes towards corruption in India & Nigeria’ • Team 1 (UK) = Dr Heather Marquette (International Development Department) – team leader/India; Dr Insa Nolte (Centre for West African Studies) - Nigeria, both University of Birmingham • Team 2 (India) = Prof Vinod Pavarala, Dr Kanchan K. Malik, both University of Hyderabad • Team 3 (Nigeria) = Dr Antonia Simbine, Nigerian Institute of Social & Economic Research; Dr Emmanuel Aiyede, University of Ibadan • Sites/religions • India: Amritsar & Chandigarh, Punjab (Sikhism) and Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (Hinduism) • Nigeria: Kano (Islam), Abuja (all), Owerri (Christianity/AFT) and Ibadan (Christianity/Islam) Doing away with assumptions   In the (scant) literature, 2 assumptions come through (Beets 2007 :72):  ‘faithful adherents to religion will refrain from corruption because of the inherent theft, dishonesty, illegality, and mistreatment of others’  ‘those who are not faithful adherents of religions are more likely to engage in corruption because of an absence of religious guidance’ So why then are many of the world’s most corrupt countries also the most religious?  As a British diplomat in 1960s Pakistan said, ‘Religions have been speaking out against murder and adultery for thousands of years, and yet people still kill each other and cheat on their spouses. Why should we expect it to be any different with corruption?’ Approach to the research    DFID-funded so must aim for country-led research Original proposal suggested mixed-methods research but consultation within team led to a qualitative-constructivist approach based on Pavarala’s (1996) study of elite attitudes toward corruption in India Social science approach, not about theology → our job is to focus on the relationship (if any) between religion and attitudes towards corruption, not to produce in-depth theological analysis of religious texts  Research positionality key issue (i.e., 2 Hindus, 2 Christians [1 Anglican & 1 Catholic], 2 agnostic-ish)  Interdisciplinary team – 3 political scientists, 2 sociologist, 1 anthropologist Approach (cont.)  Methodological components:  Textual analysis/development of literature reviews (key stage!)  Semi-structured interviews & focus group discussions  240 participants in total (including leaders/members of religious organisations, policy-makers, private sector, NGOs, media, academics, university students & people with specific responsibility for anti-corruption policy design & implementation) Approach allowed us to:  Avoid limitations of previous, largely survey-based studies (e.g., the famous – in Barrington, NH anyway – tattoo!)  See both religion and corruption as ‘lived experiences’  Analytical categories  8 broad sub-categories emerged through open coding (also segregated on basis of region-social group-religion)         On being ‘religious’ Religion and value systems: ethical codes of conduct Definitions and perceptions of corruption (Knowledge of) discourses on corruption in religious texts Religion and people’s attitudes towards corruption Tradition, modernity and corruption The role of religious organisations in promoting ethical conduct The accountability of religious organisations Main findings     MF 1: Religion in personal definitions of corruption MF 2: Religion, trust and corruption MF 3: The problem of ‘modern living’ and consumerism MF 4: Prevention and punishment – even God cannot fight corruption! MF 1: Religion in personal definitions of corruption       No respondents expressed toleration regarding any form of corrupt behaviour; strong condemnation across the board India – largely voiced along secular lines (e.g., impact on poverty, trust in government, trust in society) Nigeria – always voiced firstly along religious lines, with only some respondents then offering secular definitions (absence of fear of God, all social bads – including homosexuality as well as bribery) Condemnation in both countries of deeply entrenched, ‘systemic corruption’ Many respondents admitting to having to engage in corruption because of the system, but went through process of ‘othering’ to explain this Suggests corruption as a collective action problem (Persson et al 2010) MF 2: Religion, trust and corruption      Clear emphasis on lack of trust in both countries Makes use of religious organisations as potential anticorruption partners difficult because religion good at intra-group not inter-group trust  Exercise caution where there’s already inter-group conflict, for ex. Religious organisations seen as part of the problem (a.k.a. why we didn’t also do the research in Tirupati!)  ‘We make God a stakeholder in our corrupt activities’ (Director of an Anti-Corruption Bureau, India) Despite this, in both countries there was a sense that religion should make a positive difference Some emphasis on (improved) values education MF 3: The problem of ‘modern living’ and consumerism       Values education facing stiff competition from other messages in society that value material success Corruption blamed on ‘consumerist’ and ‘materialistic’ aspects of modernisation & globalisation Flaunting wealth used to be seen to be bad behaviour, but now encouraged…bragging about corruption to show off how important you are! India – tied into debates about modernity; Nigeria – tied into debates about westernisation Religion/religious organisations seen as part of the problem more than as part of the solution In both countries, a version of ‘simple living, high thinking’ was argued to be a necessary antidote  Gandhism as an anti-corruption strategy? MF 4: Prevention and punishment – even God cannot fight corruption!  Main point of difference between the 2 countries (with no real differences between religions): India – there is no point thinking about religion because of this collective action problem; only prevention and punishment will help Nigeria – if only people could be more religious, there would be no corruption!   Next steps 3 working papers so far (available at www.rad.bham.ac.uk)  2 articles under review (Public Administration & Development and Development in Practice)  2 book chapters by end December  3 more journal articles based around main findings – advice welcome!!!  Country teams also developing their own dissemination plans  Developing methodology on attitudes further with Paul Heywood (and others?) as part of FP7  Dissemination to policy makers → U4, DFID, World Bank, EC, etc   Many thanks for listening!  Further comments/questions welcome – h.a.marquette@bham.ac.uk or +44 (0) 121 414 2296 or heather.marquette (skype)