
Aerial view of Lagos island and Lagos harbour, Nigeria, on 17 March 2016. Photo: Getty Images.
Anti-corruption efforts could be made significantly more effective through new ways of understanding why people engage in the practice.
The results of the survey suggest the following:
Nigeria’s motorists are subjected daily to vehicle checks by the various agencies responsible for enforcing traffic laws and regulations, and for providing civic protection and crime prevention. These agencies include the Nigeria Police Force, the Federal Road Safety Commission and the Vehicle Inspection Office Driver and Vehicle Licensing Administration.
While many officers from these agencies do conduct themselves in a professional manner, interactions with citizens tend to be a rich context for bribery demands and extortion on the part of armed police officers, road safety corps officers or vehicle inspection officers. Motorists accused of violations of traffic laws are often the prime targets, and responses to the survey conducted for this report reflect the choices and preferences people are typically faced with. An individual who refuses or fails to pay a bribe in such a situation is likely to suffer a range of negative treatments, variously including lengthy delays at checkpoints, detention at the agency office, threats of arrest and/or other violation charges, vehicle impoundment or tyre deflation.
The study reveals that in such interactions in which bribery and extortion can occur, there is no social norm among motorists or other road users of giving bribes to avoid the penalties for traffic violations. However, there is a social norm among law enforcement agents of soliciting bribes to negotiate enforcing or withdrawing penalties for traffic violations.
The findings show that Nigerians hold strong negative personal beliefs about being asked for a bribe during a traffic violation check. In circumstances like these where people do tend to give bribes, the survey results indicate that they do so because this is what they observe others doing, but also that respondents overwhelmingly believe that other people think that it is wrong and illegal to give a bribe. Furthermore, most respondents say that few people would think that law enforcement agents should ask for a bribe, but that people would offer bribes because they think others in similar situations will do the same.
The responses given in interviews conducted both before and as part of the survey also indicate that giving a bribe to a law enforcement agent to avoid a penalty for a traffic law violation can be less costly, less risky and less time-consuming than would be going through the official procedure for the violation.24 This indicates that in the specific act of giving a bribe, most people do so as a rational response to their immediate and pressing circumstances. Drivers of commercial passenger vehicles can, for example, find themselves under pressure from their passengers to pay a bribe to a law enforcement agent because of the potential inconvenience to their journey of following the official process.25
Typically, when a motorist is accused of a traffic law violation, their vehicle is impounded until a fine is paid. The prescribed fine must be paid at a designated bank and the payment receipt delivered to the agency office before the vehicle can be retrieved. This process is cumbersome and particularly complicated in rural areas with fewer banks and poor road connectivity.26 These types of challenging conditions for resolving traffic violations by official means contribute to an environment in which law enforcement agents make bribery demands and extort money from citizens so that charges can be overlooked or rescinded. To avoid the complex official process, people engage in giving bribes even when they know this action is wrong and illegal.
In many cases, the amount of money that is asked for by a law enforcement agent to avoid a fine is less than the actual amount of the supposed traffic violation. A law enforcement agent may, for example, ask for or accept a bribe of ₦5,000 or less to rescind a ₦10,000 fine.27 If a person refuses to pay the officer who has solicited the bribe, the penalty becomes hefty in terms of the time required for filing paperwork and going to the bank in order to pay the fine. Law enforcement agents who ask for bribes have incentives to increase the overall cost to the motorist of going through the official process by using their discretion to draw out those processes.
On interstate roads and highways, for example, because of the frequency of corrupt behaviours involving bribery and extortion by law enforcement agents, drivers of commercial passenger vehicles tend routinely to carry small bundles of banknotes specifically to facilitate the on-the-spot settlement of bribes to various agency officials at the multiple vehicle checkpoints they are likely to encounter.28
In order to address such normalized corrupt behaviours, interventions to support corruption avoidance and make playing by the rules less costly must focus on ensuring that going through official processes and paying official fines is more attractive than bribing officials.
Within the law enforcement community, the research for this report shows that as regards bribery- and extortion-rich interactions, there are both ‘upward’ (junior to senior officers) and ‘downward’ (senior to junior officers) pressures to engage in corruption.
Senior law enforcement officers expect lower-ranking officers to solicit bribes from the public – and believe they do so – and monies collected from such ‘informal fines’ are split across the corps as well as making their way up the chain of command.29 Lower-ranking officers believe and expect that senior officers are also engaged in corrupt activity, but on a larger scale involving public funds allocated for the running of the agencies.30
A perverse pyramid of expectations highlights the incentives within law enforcement to keep bribery and extortion going, and those who try to avoid the practice are likely to face negative sanctions
This context creates and powerfully reinforces impunity, with the effect that those who go against these layered expectations (i.e. who go against the ‘norm’) are viewed as a threat and as ‘norm violators’, despite the fact that the norm in this case concerns a negative behaviour. Thus, a perverse pyramid of expectations highlights the incentives within law enforcement to keep bribery and extortion going, and those who try to avoid the practice are likely to face negative sanctions.
These sanctions take various forms, and can be quite severe – including workplace exclusion or isolation, loss of position or work, financial loss, demotion or professional stagnation. However, less tangible social sanctions can also be very effective in determining people’s choices and sustaining behaviour.
The language used to describe behaviour or people engaging in particular practices provide very useful insights as to societal values and how these are enforced. Moralistic and value-laden terms such as ‘wicked’, ‘mean-spirited’ or ‘evil’ that are used to ‘judge’ corruption norm violators, as well as language suggesting that individuals are expected to ‘carry others along’ by engaging in a particular practice, tend to be powerful sanctions that are used to perpetuate a culture of corruption in many sectors and contexts in Nigeria.31
The presence of these types of sanctions is a strong indicator of a social norm that will drive and sustain a collective behaviour or practice. Even where people know that a behaviour or practice has a negative impact, they will engage in it to keep favour with their reference network. If a person’s relevant reference network – for example peers, colleagues or members of their family or community – is likely to think that person is being ‘wicked’, ‘mean-spirited’ or ‘evil’ for refusing to engage in a practice that is corrupt, the risk of this judgment creates a social pressure to comply. As one interviewee in Lagos noted: ‘These are not just expectations from your kin, but also of colleagues in your office.’32
The risk of a loss of status, position, access or trust within a person’s reference network is a powerful incentive for most to comply with the expectations of the majority within their network. Belonging to a network, and gaining the trust of those inside that network, typically requires an adaption to the environment of the network. Thus, if corrupt exchanges are expected and the norm, then there are social pressures to conform, and consequences for non-conformity.
The presence of a social norm of soliciting for bribes in the law enforcement community in Nigeria suggests that agents of the state ask for bribes because they think that their colleagues do, and that they are also expected to do so. Such beliefs and expectations create an environment that sustains corrupt behaviour. This type of group dynamic plays a decisive role in the degree of tolerance of corruption within law enforcement institutions in Nigeria, and in the lack or ineffectiveness of the public’s poor perception of law enforcement in Nigeria33 as a deterrent to corruption. Over time, constant exposure to a culture of bribery or extortion can lead to the normalization and entrenchment of a tolerant environment in which such practices flourish. The formal and legal ways of doing things remain in place, but this is paralleled and possibly overwhelmed by an informal, normalized system of corrupt practices.
Indeed, perhaps the most important aspect as to whether people respect and abide by the rule of law is the collective understanding that current legal arrangements are as they should be and do not stray too far from existing social norms. So, where bribery is supported by a social norm and is seen as a fact of everyday life, the enforcement of laws against bribery will be extremely difficult. This is because where bribery is part of routine interactions, those who engage in it will not be stigmatized. Furthermore, where key agents responsible for enforcing compliance with the law are embedded in a context where there are powerful social norms of corruption, laws to change that behaviour will suffer as legal enforcers look the other way – implicitly endorsing the illegal activity they are charged with prohibiting.
A culture of widespread petty bribery and extortion may seem innocuous, or even beneficial, in some circumstances, since it may at face value be cheaper for an individual to pay a modest bribe rather than incur the greater costs involved in paying a prescribed penalty fine or going through official processes.34 One interviewee in Sokoto, for instance, noted: ‘People only see grand corruption as the “real” corruption. Petty corruption is not really corruption.’35
However, the cumulative effect of petty corruption is harmful, and has been particularly corrosive to Nigerian society. First, widespread and seemingly innocuous acts of corruption disproportionately target the poor, and help keep them poor.36 Second, petty corruption diverts resources away from legitimate and beneficial activities to illegitimate and unproductive ones.37 Third, it tends to be linked to, or indicative of, more substantial forms of corruption, as senior officials or employees allow petty corruption by junior ones to continue so that collusion in systemic corruption is assured.38 Fourth, and perhaps most important, the aggregate effects of widespread petty corruption serve to undermine the legitimacy of government institutions in general, and their capacity to fairly administer public goods and services as well as protection under the law.39 The fact that more people are likely to be more directly affected by petty corruption in their day-to-day activities – for example, time spent detained at a road safety corps unit command – than by grand corruption exacerbates these four negative effects.40
Across Nigeria, most of those surveyed concerning experiences during traffic violation checks indicated in their responses a high level of knowledge of legality. However, there are some notable distinctions. For example, although nine out of 10 people (over 90 per cent of respondents) in Enugu State considered that it is wrong and illegal for law enforcement agents to ask for a bribe, five out of 10 (50 per cent of respondents) there said that their fellow citizens thought these agents should ask for a bribe. This suggests that citizens seem to be making systematic mistakes about what others in their community believe, a phenomenon termed pluralistic ignorance.
Respondents in Enugu thus appeared to have mistaken beliefs about other people’s beliefs in a way that might sustain a set of negative practices. This is because people are less likely to challenge a certain behaviour if they think others widely accept it, which creates a sense of inevitability or fatalism around it. As one interviewee in Calabar put it: ‘If you think about corruption in Nigeria you will just be disheartened. It is a situation that defies a solution.’41
In societies in which both corruption and the belief that corruption exists are widespread, people tend to think that success has more to do with luck or with having connections, and that dishonest behaviour is necessary to get ahead.42 This may result in a vicious cycle, as people are more likely to engage in corruption if they think others are doing so too.43 Moreover, it is very difficult to implement anti-corruption strategies or to encourage different behaviour if corrupt practices are considered incontestable and/or impossible to overcome. It becomes even more difficult when beliefs about the hopelessness of tackling corruption are combined with mistaken beliefs that other people do not share a person’s own moral beliefs about corruption.
Enugu and similar settings could benefit from a well-developed social marketing campaign that seeks to improve communication through multiple formats and channels within the community about what citizens actually believe with regard to certain practices. Raising awareness and improving communication in cases of pluralistic ignorance can help dispel false beliefs that drive the behaviour and the cynicism or apathy towards questioning things as they are, while also galvanizing support and action for people’s true beliefs.
Where most people engage in practices that are contrary to their personal beliefs and values, there is an opportunity for effective communication of people’s shared beliefs to stimulate collective action (e.g. against giving bribes) while much-needed interventions are introduced in the other direction (e.g. reducing the drivers of bribery solicitation).44
Under Nigeria’s policy on the basic standard of primary healthcare at the ward level (specifically from the level of primary health clinics), publicly funded facilities are to have a minimum number of inpatient ward beds.46 In principle, citizens needing these beds while receiving medical treatment should not be asked to pay for admission, but the norm and practice deviate sharply from this policy. Many government-run hospitals in Nigeria are severely underfunded and poorly equipped.47
It is not uncommon for priority of care to be given to those who can make an informal payment, rather than on the basis of how critical and serious the medical emergency is
Years of deficits in public funding for healthcare, coupled with massive embezzlement and financial mismanagement, have led to an availability and quality crisis in the sector that has fostered a culture of routine demands for bribes by health workers and experiences of extortion in public healthcare settings in order to keep services going and regulate their distribution. It is not uncommon for priority of care to be given to those who can make an informal payment, rather than on the basis of how critical and serious the medical emergency is.48
Additionally, in many health facilities there are no clearly displayed lists showing the cost implications to users of services or procedures, and charges often seem arbitrary and can be negotiated down. Even where official-looking receipts are issued, users cannot be sure whether they have been extorted or if payments have been legitimately directed into the hospital’s accounting system.
In this context of uneven experiences of government-provided healthcare, the survey attempted to measure beliefs surrounding particular behaviours and practices that may typically occur when respondents or members of their household have required admission for in-hospital care.
The survey shows there is a difference in the frequency of behaviour across states as regards being charged by a health worker for hospital bed spaces in a government-funded facility. For example, almost seven out of 10 respondents in both Enugu and Rivers states (67 per cent and 66.4 per cent of respondents respectively), and more than four out of 10 in Adamawa State (44.7 per cent of respondents), said that they had been charged for a hospital bed, as against just over one in 10 in the FCT (12.3 per cent of Abuja respondents). Respondents in Enugu and Rivers also indicated that they expected half of people in their community would be asked to make an unofficial or questionable payment at a government health facility, whereas respondents in the FCT indicated that they expected only 10 per cent of people in their community would be asked for a payment. This may reflect the fact that health facilities in Abuja receive more funding and that services are more even in the capital than is the case in Enugu, Rivers or Adamawa, or that the likelihood of a government hospital employee being exposed for wrongly asking for payment from the public is greater because of the higher concentration of public-sector employees among healthcare users in Abuja. It is, however, highly notable that respondents hold very different beliefs as regards interactions with employees in government health facilities from those regarding law enforcement officials, even though corrupt activity can occur in both situations.
Respondents’ beliefs around informal monetary demands and extorting behaviour on the part of government health workers are also quite different from those held concerning law enforcement officials. While most people surveyed know that it is illegal for an employee to charge or extort money for a hospital bed space that should be free, most think that the employees should ask for payment, and few think it is wrong for them to do so. In some states, people considered that other people would think it is wrong for a health worker to ask for a payment for admission to a government hospital, even though most respondents thought that these employees should ask for a payment. Here again, people are mistaken about the expectations of others.
This contrasts with respondents’ beliefs around illegitimate and extorting charges by law enforcement officers in the context of checks for traffic violations. Where most respondents think that the government health workers should ask for payment, and few think it is wrong for them to do so, most respondents did not think that a law enforcement official should demand a bribe or extort money, and many think it is wrong for them to do so.
The research interviews and survey results suggest that people do not hold negative beliefs towards practices that can be described as bribery and/or extortion if they think the transaction is necessary for the running of a public institution and they are receiving the required service. People are able to rationalize the replacement of what ought to be public transfers from the government for an essential service with private transfers to fill the gap. This amounts to a kind of regressive taxation that is most often imposed on those who can least afford it. The wealthiest in Nigeria are often able to choose private, for-profit hospitals and schools, but the poorest must make do with public services that are routinely underfunded and poorly equipped. The outcome of these circumstances is a greater burden on those who can bear this the least.
With a high proportion of Nigerians living in poverty,49 the burden of bribes and similar informal payments is unbearable for those with a typically meagre income, and the penalties for resisting the demands can be profound.
In critical contexts in which people are seeking medical assistance or protection, or simply trying to get on with their daily lives, they may know that a behaviour they are about to engage in is illegal and wrong but feel in that moment that they have no choice. It can be for efficiency’s sake, or it can be a matter of life and death. Whatever the reason, such interactions and the types of behaviours and practices that tend to occur help to sustain the system of corruption that keeps the public services they need far out of reach. People are very often trapped in a cycle of corruption. The Nigerian government must think hard about policy interventions that make playing by the rules less costly than is participating in corruption. Engaging collective action to reduce corruption will remain an uphill task for as long as people know that there are benefits and incentives in cutting corners and avoiding official processes. In an environment where formal and transparent bureaucratic functions are poorly established and easily subverted, corrupt transactions assume a paradoxical type of efficiency, and concerted efforts are required to substitute for this efficiency. A broad cross-section of respondents concurred that people in Nigeria engage in corrupt practices because doing so helps to circumvent bureaucracy that is less efficient than corruption.50
A broad cross-section of respondents concurred that people in Nigeria engage in corrupt practices because doing so helps to circumvent bureaucracy that is less efficient than corruption
Not only is the embezzlement of public funds widely acknowledged as a crucial factor affecting the capacity of the Nigerian state at all levels to manage resources and deliver public goods and services, but very strong gender biases are evident in expectations and judgments surrounding embezzlement. The gender of a government official or employee who takes government funds for personal use tends to be an important factor in people’s beliefs and expectations about the corrupt behaviour.
The general trend from the survey indicates that most Nigerians think that women are less likely than men to engage in corruption. Almost six out of 10 people (59 per cent of respondents) thought it was extremely unlikely for a female government official to take public funds for personal use, as against four out of 10 (41.1 per cent) for male officials.51
This finding supports evidence collected in interviews suggesting that most people hold the belief that women are less likely to engage in corruption and that people judge women more harshly when they do. Again, the presence of a negative sanction indicates the presence of a gendered norm of corruption whereby women are sanctioned more harshly than men. This sanction is enforced through the kinds of moralistic and value-laden language used to judge the behaviour of women who engage in corruption.
The research revealed two important and related contextual rationalizations that seem to be commonly used to explain the belief that women in Nigeria are less likely than men to engage in corrupt practices. The first is rooted in a general, religious-based view that women are ‘purer’ than men and therefore ought to act in a more righteous and less selfish manner. This quality of moral purity is perceived as God-given and presumed to be inherent to the nature of women. The second is that men are not only thought to be less charitable or altruistic than women, but they are also thought to bear greater financial and social responsibilities that make them more prone or pressured to engage in corruption. These ideas, and the rationalizations they lead to, are rooted in religious-based values and social norms of gender roles.52 In this context, a man’s corruption can be explained by what is assumed to be his more exploitative and less nurturing nature, as well as by the financial responsibilities of being the ‘breadwinner’ in his household. One interviewee both rationalized and justified corrupt behaviour by a man in this way:
Imagine you have a wife, and she wants enough money to buy a new purse, and she says to you, ‘I love you, and I need money for this new purse. If you love me, you will get me this money for this new purse.’ And if, under the threat that she might leave you, you steal from the state or do something corrupt to get the money for your wife, whose fault is it? Is it your fault? No … it’s your wife’s fault.53
The judgment and expectations surrounding corruption practised by women in Nigeria are in effect an inversion of the rationalizations of men’s corruption, and the sanctions towards women are generally harsher. Thus, corruption by a woman would be judged as more ‘avaricious’ because of the assumption of a more nurturing nature and the absence of the financial and social responsibilities attached to the role of breadwinner in a household. Another interviewee claimed: ‘When people hear of a woman being corrupt, they say, “if she’s corrupt, imagine how evil her husband must be.”’54 This conveys a stronger moral judgement towards women even when the practice may be the same.
A justificatory rationale is given for men’s corrupt behaviour, whereas corruption by a woman is viewed as a behaviour that goes against a pure and righteous nature
These kinds of judgments reflect a gender bias that is rooted in Nigeria’s broader patriarchal values – i.e. when men are corrupt, this is because they may need to be and/or they are wired to be corrupt; when women are corrupt, this is because of an uncharacteristic greed. A justificatory rationale is given for men’s corrupt behaviour, whereas corruption by a woman is viewed as a behaviour that goes against a pure and righteous nature.
Many such social beliefs in Nigeria towards corruption are rooted in religious and moral values, as evidenced by people’s perception of women and corruption. More broadly, cultural and social values, concepts of wealth and power, morality and gender roles are all intertwined, and they all strongly influence popular expectations of women in public and private domains, and their access and integration into corrupt networks.55
While further research is necessary in order to understand the complex relationship between gender and corruption in Nigeria, the findings of the research for this report, as well as anecdotal evidence on social beliefs and expectations around this subject, suggests that the sanctions component of anti-corruption interventions in Nigeria should be designed with a consideration of the potential gender impact. Further evidence may also show if women and men actually respond to sanctions differently, and the gender differences that may apply to different forms of corrupt behaviour.56 For instance, do women seem to engage less in corruption because of unequal access to power and opportunities in the private and public sector? Moreover, do reference networks where social norms of corruption exist influence the behaviours of men and women at different rates? The answers to questions like these may contribute to the tailoring of more gender-sensitive anti-corruption efforts. However, due to the particularities of societal expectations of women, gender-sensitive anti-corruption efforts should be designed carefully and in a manner that does not disproportionately burden women with social sanctions, but which instead increases female participation in the public and private domain at all levels. This is because women are usually more heavily affected by corruption57 but are often under-consulted, or excluded from, policymaking on anti-corruption. Interventions and actions designed seemingly to include women can unintentionally disempower them and create even greater gender inequality.
There are systemic factors that combine with social drivers to sustain corruption in Nigeria. The nature of the social contract, which in the context of this report refers to the voluntary agreement between members of society to secure and regulate the provision of goods such as protection, welfare and general resources in a given community, is one such factor.58 Crucially, there appears to be a local social contract that governs the relationship between citizens and state officials in Nigeria.
Corruption tends to be rife in societies characterized by local social contracts and a lack of a universal (or national) social contract. In societies in which only local social contracts operate, trust and resources are allocated according to social (i.e. personal) relationships and patronage, rather than according to neutral and fair rules. In this environment, people’s expectations of the behaviour of people with access to government resources is that they would and should use these for the benefit of those with a personal or social link to them, thus creating a local social contract.
Expectations surrounding corrupt practices turn a great deal on the nature of these social contracts. Interviewees across the country indicated a strong in-group/out-group effect with regard to expectations and judgments surrounding corruption. For example, if a person from a particular village or town becomes the governor of a state or takes up a political appointment, then the people from that village or town expect benefits from having a ‘home-grown’ or ‘son of the soil’ government official. An anti-corruption expert working in a government agency in Abuja commented:
Nigeria is a society where one is expected to look after their family and extended family, and perhaps even other members of their ethnic group. So, there is an expectation that, if you are in a position to exploit your position of power for personal gain, you will do it. This expectation is from the people who will benefit from your exploitation of power.59
When people turn to – or are socialized to rely on – their own ethnic or religious communities for the provision of public goods or opportunities, corrupt practices and a lack of fairness become easily entrenched. In such a society, politics is more about ‘sharing spoils’ rather than ‘promoting overall prosperity’.60 An academic in Enugu State expressed the view that:
Given the generally poor state of the social contract between citizens of Enugu and the state government, most citizens view seats in the state government as an opportunity to obtain a slice of the “national cake” as opposed to a way to equitably distribute shared resources.61
In-group behaviour further instils a sense of trust in an individual’s own ethnic and religious community, and fosters hostility or low trust towards out-group (other) communities.62 In Nigeria, this has weakened the consolidation of a strong national identity based on shared and equal citizenship, and drives competition for public goods based on informal links and access. A majority of the interviewees agreed with the view that ‘to get ahead or get something done [in Nigeria], you must know somebody’.63
The research underlying this report suggests that these beliefs and expectations are very widespread and identifiable in many parts of Nigeria. As such, the incidence of communal tolerance of corruption must be taken into consideration when designing anti-corruption campaigns. Particularly as they may inform local understandings of what constitutes corrupt behaviour and judgments of the actions of members of their community accused of corruption, it is important that local actors are educated about the impact of corruption on their community and how national identity is undermined. Drawing such a direct line between practices and their impact is critical for coalescing support against corrupt behaviour and impartial grassroots assessment of corrupt practices, especially when they are committed by members of one’s community.64
Social beliefs about, and expectations of, people in government in Nigeria are that they do and should use their positions to benefit themselves and others in their community. Again, there is evidence of the presence of a social norm of corruption because of the moralistic and value-laden sanctioning language that surrounds the non-compliance with these expectations of a government official. In the same way, there is moralistic and value-laden sanctioning language surrounding the non-compliance of women with social beliefs and expectations regarding their engagement in corrupt activity. A banker in Lagos argued:
Once you are in political office [in Nigeria], you are expected to be richer, people expect you to steal, you are a fool if you don’t. You are not sharp if you don’t.65
Such value-laden language indicates a view that a public official who does not engage in corruption may be negatively sanctioned, as opposed to being rewarded for choosing to not be corrupt. Another interviewee noted: ‘The more people you help [in your community], the more influential you are and respectable.’66
Also in this context, government officials who violate the norm by refusing to focus benefits on an in-group are viewed as ‘squandering the opportunity’ of being so close to political power and state resources.67 An academic in Sokoto commented:
People will judge a person’s time in power by how many people you helped in your community. You are expected to give gifts at every celebration or occasion; from births to burials and chieftaincy title conferment. How does a public official afford to be part of their community in this way without engaging in corruption?68
This expectation is paired with the belief that people in government will use their position to enrich themselves. A student in Benue State argued that even though a person would typically expect a government official to direct benefits to their community, there is also the sense that: ‘The government is not for them [i.e. the people], but instead, the government is a way for people in the government to improve their own lot.’69
It is important to note that these are the types of beliefs and expectations that animate a very local social contract. Expectations and judgments of corrupt practices switch on the basis of the relationship between the person making the judgment and the person engaging in the practice. When a person from town X sees the federal minister from town X stealing government funds and distributing cash payments to people from town X or providing jobs to people from town X without proper meritocratic competition, then that person might simply view that government official as enforcing their end of the ‘contract’ – i.e. doing what they are supposed to. According to this rationale, the official is in a position to exploit an opportunity to engage in corruption in order to provide resources for their people, and so they should. However, when a person from town X sees a federal minister from neighbouring town Y engage in a similar sort of corruption by virtue of being in a position to exploit state resources to provide cash or jobs for the people of town Y, then the person from town X sees the governor of town Y as engaging in an unjustifiable and reprehensible form of corruption. The application of this type of subjective assessment as to the appropriateness or otherwise of acts of corruption, whereby only corrupt practices by a member of an out-group truly count as corruption, contributes to some local resistance to efforts by anti-corruption agencies to carry out their duties of investigating and prosecuting corrupt individuals.70
Patronage and the exploitation of social relationships are central to how government business is conducted
The kind of corrupt governance norms that drive beliefs and behaviours towards the distributive logic for public goods are central to political processes in which winners and their associates view the state as a means to enrich themselves and sometimes their constituents at the expense of the citizenry at large.71
Nigeria’s politics is still fundamentally structured in this way. Patronage and the exploitation of social relationships are central to how government business is conducted, as opposed to the provision of resources in the name of the public interest. Such a governance norm results in the unfair allocation of public resources and an undersupply of public goods and services. The role of the government moves further away from being the primary supplier of goods and services for all, to that of an instrument for the personal and/or mutual enrichment of the very few.
Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts will be undermined if governance norms that sustain such primacy of the local over the national social contract persist. Collective action to support any government effort is difficult in an unfair environment in which the allocation of state resources is based on partial rules rather a fair logic of the public interest. Ultimately, corruption is reinforced in an environment where these types of negative governance norms persist.
A society governed by local social contracts makes it difficult to use the legal system to combat corruption. Citizens are less likely to perceive laws as legitimate and thus less likely to abide by them. Laws might work effectively in shifting social norms if the legal system is perceived as fair and the enforcers of laws are seen as honest. But when laws or the legal system are not seen as fair, laws can be ineffective. When laws and the general procedural aspects of governance that produce them are not considered to be fair and neutral, anti-corruption campaigns are ineffective legal interventions because they are seen as overtly political or unfairly targeting certain groups – for example, critics of the government, political opponents or people with no connections to the powerful in society.72