The interactive wrong of political corruption : a reply to Warren, Santoro and Fabre

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date issued

Editors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Reuse License

Description of rights: CC-BY-NC-4.0
Item type:Item, ZeitschriftenaufsatzAccess status: Open Access ,

Abstract

In this response essay, Ceva and Ferretti reply to their critics and clarify some key aspects of their book. Specifically, the discussion starts by elaborating on the notion of an ethics of office accountability, explaining that the specification of institutional norms of officeholders behaviour is the result of practices of officeholders' interaction (including democratic practices) and reflection. The second theme is the responsibility for political corruption. The authors emphasise the importance of focussing not only on retrospective responsibility, for the sake of punishing corrupt behaviour, but especially on accountability as a form of self-reflection by the officeholders on the weaknesses of their institutional work together. This exercise is preliminary to their assuming forward-looking responsibilities for anti-corruption. The third and final part discusses political corruption as a specifically interactive wrong. For the authors, the magnitude and moral salience of the wrong of corruption, as well as the different wrongs implicated both from an interactive perspective and in consideration of the harm caused to third parties, must be assessed in light of the context and the moral standing of the public institution in question. In this sense, political corruption is a pro tanto wrong.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Published in

European journal of political theory, 23, 3, Sage, London u.a., 2024, https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851231186700

Relationships

Cites

Compiles

Continues

Describes

Documents

Has the metadata

Has the part

Has the translation

Has the version

Is cited by

Is compiled by

Is continued by

Is derived from

Is described by

Is documented by

Is identical to

Is metadata for

Is a new version of

Is an original form of

Is a part of

Is a previous version of

Is published in

Is referenced by

Is required by

Is reviewed by

Is a source of

Is supplemented by

Is a supplement to

Is a translation of

Is a variant form of

References

Requires

Reviews

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By