مبانی معرفت‌شناختی مدل‌های بین‌المللی سنجش فساد و سلامت اداری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، تهران، ایران

2 گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی ، تهران، ایران.

چکیده
یکی از موانع بر سر راه توسعه پایدار و حکمرانی خوب، پدیده فساد اداری است. سنجش دقیق این پدیده به دلیل ماهیت پنهان آن، همواره یکی از چالش‌های اساسی برای محققان و سیاست‌گذاران بوده است. به همین دلیل، ابزارهای سنجش پیچیده‌ای برای درک بهتر ابعاد این مشکل و ارزیابی اثربخشی برنامه‌های مبارزه با آن ضروری به نظر می‌رسد.
در این راستا، پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی و تحلیل مدل‌های بین‌المللی سنجش فساد و سلامت اداری، با اتکا بر پارادایم تفسیری و رویکرد استقرایی، از روش مرور نظام‌مند متون و اسناد معتبر بین‌المللی ۲۰۰۰ تا ۲۰۲۵ بهره برده است. داده‌ها از طریق تحلیل محتوای کیفی بر روی ۱۶ مدل مرجع جهانی استخراج و ارزیابی شدند.
یافته‌ها نشان‌دهنده سیر تطور مدل‌های سنجش در قالب چهار نسل متمایز است: ادراک‌محور، ریسک بازار، تجربه زیسته و یکپارچگی نهادی. نتایج حاکی از گذار ادبیات جهانی از رویکردهای انتزاعی و ادراکی (نسل اول) به سمت رویکردهای ساختارمحور و شواهد‌بنیان (نسل چهارم) است. رویکردی که فساد را نارسایی در معماری نهادی تلقی می‌کند. این شاخص‌ها عمدتاً مبتنی بر داده‌های ادراکی و متناسب با بستر کشورهای دیگر هستند و با ویژگی‌های نظام اداری ایران تطابق کامل ندارند. بنابراین، برای مبارزه مؤثر با فساد در ایران و تحقق اهداف قانونی، طراحی و به‌کارگیری شاخص‌های بومی‌شده، معتبر و قابل سنجش حائز اهمیت است.

عنوان مقاله English

Epistemological Foundations of International Models for Administrative Corruption and Integrity

نویسندگان English

Hossein Jamour 1
Niloufar Mozafari 2
1 Department of Business Administration, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Business Administration, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Administrative corruption is a major obstacle to sustainable development and good governance. Due to its clandestine nature, accurately measuring this phenomenon has consistently posed a fundamental challenge for researchers and policymakers. Consequently, sophisticated measurement tools are essential to better comprehend the dimensions of this problem and to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-corruption programs.
In this regard, the current study aims to identify and analyze international models for measuring corruption and administrative integrity. Grounded in an interpretive paradigm and an inductive approach, it utilizes a systematic review of authoritative international literature and documents from 20002000 to 20252025. Data were extracted and evaluated through qualitative content analysis of 1616 global reference models.
The findings reveal the evolution of measurement models across four distinct generations: perception-based, market risk, lived experience, and institutional integrity. The results indicate a transition in global literature from abstract and perceptual approaches (first generation) toward structure-oriented and evidence-based approaches (fourth generation) – an approach that perceives corruption as a failure in institutional architecture. These global indicators are predominantly based on perceptual data and tailored to the context of other nations, lacking full alignment with the characteristics of Iran’s administrative system. Therefore, to effectively combat corruption in Iran and achieve statutory objectives, the design and implementation of localized, valid, and measurable indicators are of paramount importance.

1.       حسینی هاشم‌زاده، داوود، فاضلی، محمد، محدثی، حسن، عابدی جعفری، حسن، حبیبی، لیلی (1395). سنجش فساد و سلامت سازمانی شهرداری تهران، مرکز مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی شهر تهران.
2.       عبادی، آرام، فاضلی، محمد (1403). تدوین چارچوب روش‌شناختی برای مفهوم‌شناسی، سنجش و ارزیابی شاخص اراده سیاسی برای مقابله با فساد، توسعه اجتماعی، 19(1)، 95-126. https://doi.org/10.22055/qjsd.2024.39455.2568
3.       مخترع، آیدا، کسرائیان، حمیدرضا (1403). دیدگاه هرمنوتیکی شفافیت در برابر تنگناهای اصلی فساد در نظام حقوقی ایران، مجله بین‌المللی تحقیقات پیشرفته در علوم‌انسانی و حقوق، 1(2)، 115-101. https://doi.org/10.63053/ijrel.18
4.       مظفری، نیلوفر، بحری، الناز (۱۴۰۴). شاخص‌های ملی سنجش فساد و سلامت اداری (۱): مطالعه تطبیقی، مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی. https://doi.org/10.22034/report.mrc.2025.1404.33.6.20956
 
5.      Afrobarometer. (2017). Afrobarometer: Let the people have a say. Retrieved from https://www.afrobarometer.org
6.      Afrobarometer. (2021). Survey Round 8 Summary of Findings: Perceptions of Corruption in Africa. https://www.afrobarometer.org
7.      Aldrin, P. (2010). The invention of European public opinion. Politix, 89(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.3917/pox.089.0079
8.      Anderson, J. H., Hellman, J., Jones, G., Moore, B., Muller, H., Pradhan, S., Ryterman, R., & Sutch, H. (2000). Anticorruption in transition: A contribution to the policy debate, (Publication No. 20925). The World Bank.
9.      Apaza, C. R. (2009). Measuring governance and corruption through the Worldwide Governance Indicators: Critiques, responses, and ongoing scholarly discussion. Public Integrity, 11(4), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096509090106
10.  Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00270.x
11.  Béliz, G., & Chelala, S. (2016). El ADN de la integración regional: La voz de los latinoamericanos por una convergencia de calidad: innovación, equidad y cuidado ambiental. Inter-American Development Bank. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0010662
12.  Budsaratragoon, P., & Jitmaneeroj, B. (2020). A critique on the Corruption Perceptions Index: An interdisciplinary approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2019.100768
13.  Cabrera Benavides, L. L. (2020). Partidos Políticos y Satisfacción con la Democracia: Una mirada desde la institucionalidad de América Latina. Cuadernos de H Ideas, 13. https://doi.org/10.24215/23139048e030
14.  Capasso, S., & Santoro, L. (2025). Corruption and economic growth: greasing the wheels or sanding the gears? Evidence from Italian regions. Journal of Policy Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2025.09.007
15.  Cheeseman, N. (2020). A Tale of Two Regions – BTI 2020 Regional Report Southern and Eastern Africa. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://dx.doi.org/10.11586/2020048
16.  Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2017). V-Dem Comparisons and Contrasts with Other Measurement Projects. Econometrics: Econometric & Statistical Methods, Special Topics eJournal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2951014
17.  Crespo, I. (2009). Latinobarómetro 1997: Principales resultados. Revista De Metalurgia, 20. https://doi.org/10.14201/alh.2646
18.  Cruz-Coke, M. (2003). A Road with No Return. Journal of Democracy, 14(3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2003.0038
19.  Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2008). The effectiveness of laws against bribery abroad. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 634-651. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400372
20.  De Graff, G. (2007). Corruption: Towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41288282
21.  Del Frè, G. (2012). Country Risk and Corruption, ISBN-10: 3659141143.
22.  Dzreke, S. S., Dzreke, S. E. (2025). Political patronage networks as institutional architects of procurement asymmetry: Weaponizing rules to exclude SMEs before corruption. Frontiers in Research. https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533121
23.  Feigenblatt, H., & Tonn, J. (2017). Measuring the Opposite of Corruption: The Evolution of Governance Indicators at Global Integrity. In The Palgrave Handbook of Indicators in Global Governance (pp. 277-297). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62707-6_12
24.  Gaitonde, R., Oxman, A. D., Okebukola, P. O., & Rada, G. (2016). Interventions to reduce corruption in the health sector. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (8). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008856.pub2
25.  Ghosh, R. N., & Siddique, M. A. B. (2015). Some quantitative measures of corruption. In Corruption, good governance and economic development: contemporary analysis and case studies (pp. 9-24).
26.  Gilman, S. (2018). To understand and to misunderstand how corruption is measured: Academic research and the Corruption Perception Index. Public Integrity, 20(sup1), S74–S88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1472974
27.  Gorodensky, A., Bowra, A., Saeed, G., & Kohler, J. (2022). Anti-corruption in global health systems: Using key informant interviews to explore anti-corruption, accountability and transparency in international health organisations. BMJ Open, 12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064137
28.  Hallward-Driemeier, M., & Aterido, R. (2009). Comparing Apples with...Apples: How to Make (More) Sense of Subjective Rankings of Constraints to Business. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5054. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1476696
29.  Hartmann, H. (2020). High Vulnerability to Crisis: The Results of the BTI 2020.
30.  Heimann, F., & Pieth, M. (2017). Confronting corruption: past concerns, present challenges, and future strategies. Oxford University Press.
31.  Heller, Nathaniel. (2009). Defining and Measuring Corruption: from Where Have We Come, Where Are We Now, and What Matters for the Future?. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia.
32.  Hosseinnejad Moziraji, Z., Salajeghe, S., Anjamshoaa, Z., Jalalkamali, M., & Fatehi-Rad, N. (2023). Identification of administrative health indicators and anti-corruption measures. International Journal of Innovation Management and Organizational Behavior, 3(3), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.ijimob.3.3.19
33.  Hoti, S. (2005). Modelling volatility spillovers in country risk ratings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2005.09.006
34.  Ivanov, K. (2007). The limits of a global campaign against corruption. In The World Bank and the Ideology of Reform (pp. 28–45). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230590625_2
35.  Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1), 71-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00133
36.  Japos, G. V., & Estrada, R. D. (2014). GDP Per Capita, Economic Freedom Index, Political Culture and Freedom of the Press Index as Determinants of Corruption Perception Index: A Global Study. International Journal on Graft and Corruption, 1(1), 96-119. https://doi.org/10.7719/ijgc.v1i1.230
37.  Johnsøn, J., & Hardoon, D. (2012). Why, when and how to use the Global Corruption Barometer. U4 Brief, 2012(5).
38.  Johnston, M. (2005). Syndromes of corruption: Wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490965
39.  Kang, S. (2023). Measuring corruption as a threat to international security: An emerging indicator for enhancement of global corruption governance. Michigan Journal of International Law, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.36642/mjil.44.1.measuring
40.  Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2024). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10952
41.  Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2005). Governance matters IV: governance indicators for 1996-2004 (Vol. 3630). Washington, DC: World Bank. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.718081
42.  Kimeu, S. (2014). Corruption as a challenge to global ethics: The role of Transparency International. Journal of Global Ethics, 10(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2014.935982
43.  Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling Corruption. University of California Press, Berkeley.
44.  Klitgaard, R. (1998). International cooperation against corruption. Finance & Development, 35(1), 3-6.
45.  Knack, S. F. (2006). Measuring corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A critique of the cross-country indicators (Vol. 3968). World Bank Publications.
46.  Ko, K., & Samajdar, A. (2010). Evaluation of international corruption indexes: Should we believe them or not? The Social Science Journal, 47(3), 508–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2010.03.001
47.  Kurer, O. (2005). Corruption: An alternative approach to its definition and measurement. Political Studies, 53(1), 222-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00525.x
48.  Lafree, G., & Morris, N. M. (2004). Corruption as a Global Social problem handbook. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412973526.n34
49.  Lagrotta, L. C. N. (2025). The global architecture of corruption measurement: Methodological convergences between IACA, UNDP, UNODC and the contemporary Brazilian integrity.. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5881682
50.  Lambsdorff, J. (2003). Transparency International (TI) 1998 Corruption Perceptions Index - Framework document.
51.  Lambsdorff, J. (2005). Report on the data “Voice of the People,” question Q.5: In the past 12 months, have you or anyone living in your household paid a bribe in any form? transparencycdn.org
52.  Lambsdorff, J. G. (2006). The Methodology of the corruptions perceptions index. Passau: Transparency International and the University of Passau.transparencycdn.org
53.  Larmour, P. (2006). Culture and corruption in the Pacific Islands: Some conceptual issues and findings from studies of national integrity systems. Policy and Governance Discussion Paper. http://hdl.handle.net/10440/1148
54.  Mackey, T. K., Vian, T., & Kohler, J. (2018). The sustainable development goals as a framework to combat health-sector corruption. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(9), 634. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.209502
55.  Malito, D. V. (2014). Measuring corruption: Indicators and indices. The International Spectator, 49(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2393335
56.  Marfouk, L., Sarvaš, M., Wippell, J., & Zhu, J. (2021). Does sensitivity bias lead respondents to misreport their level of trust in political parties? An investigation into Afrobarometer’s survey results and methodology.
57.  Matei, A., & Popa, F. (2009). State capture versus administrative corruption: A comparative study for the public health service in Romania (MPRA Paper No. 17566). University Library of Munich, Germany. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/17566
58.  Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681-712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696
59.  Maxwell, L., Marquardt, K. L., & Lührmann, A. (2018). The V-Dem Method for Aggregating Expert-Coded Data.
60.  Mobolaji, H. I., & Omoteso, K. (2009). Corruption and economic growth in some selected transitional economies. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471110910940014
61.  Mokhtare, A., & Kasraeian, H. R. (2024). The Hermeneutic View of Transparency Against Major Bottlenecks of Corruption in Iran’s Legal System. International Journal of Advanced Research in Humanities and Law, 1(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.63053/ijrel.18
62.  Momoh, Z. (2015). Corruption and governance in Africa. In Proceedings of The International Academic Conference for Sub-Sahara African Transformation & Development (Vol. 3, No. 6).
63.  Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8
64.  Mousavi, P., & Pourkiani, M. (2013). Administrative corruption: Ways of tackling the problem. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(3), 178-187.
65.  Mugellini, G., & Berkachy, R. (2026). Evaluating the quality of corruption surveys for comparative research and sustainable development. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70210
66.  Mungiu-Pippidi, A., & Dadasov, R. (2016). Measuring control of corruption by a new index of public integrity. ERN: Index Numbers & Aggregation (Topic). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9324-z
67.  Murray, C. J. L., & Frenk, J. (2000). A framework for assessing the performance of health systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(6), 717–731.
68.  North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
69.  Ogwang, T., & Cho, D. (2014). A conceptual framework for constructing a corruption diffusion index. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1904-
70.  Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail—systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance26(3), 449-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
71.  Petkov, A. (2018). Looking for consistency in corruption risk assessment: How key guidance materials stack up. Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Center Journal. https://doi.org/10.5339/rolacc.2018.8
72.  Phonvichai, T. (2013). Corruption prevention and reduction through integrity assessment of government agencies: A case study of South Korea.
73.  Pozsgai-Alvarez, J. (2025). Three-dimensional corruption metrics: A proposal for integrating frequency, cost, and significance. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03473-x
74.  Pozsgai-Alvarez, J., & Pastor Sanz, I. (2021). Mapping the (anti-) corruption field: Key topics and changing trends, 1968–2020. Journal of Computational Social Science, 4, 851-881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00110-2
75.  Quah, J. T. S. (2010). Defying institutional failure: Learning from the experiences of anti-corruption agencies in four Asian countries. Crime, Law and Social Change, 53(1), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9213-1
76.  Rahman, S. A., Al-Yateem, N., Hossain, A., & Ahmed, F. R. (2024). Research ethics in public health. In O. F. von Feigenblatt & M. R. Islam (Eds.), Ethics in social science research (pp. 235-250). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-9881-0_16
77.  RAND Corporation. (2014). TRACE Matrix developed by RAND Corporation provides new tool to assess business bribery risk worldwide. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2014/11/11.html
78.  Roca, T. (2011). Measuring corruption: perception surveys or victimization surveys? Towards a better comprehension of populations’ perception mechanisms: press freedom, confidence and gossip. Towards a Better Comprehension of Populations’ Perception Mechanisms. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1909860
79.  Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge University Press.
80.  Rusciano, F. L. (2023). Citizen and elite perceptions of corruption: Insights into the global opinion process. New Global Studies. https://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2021-0043
81.  Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2012). Corruption Perceptions Index 2012 - Statistical assessment. JRC scientific and policy reports. https://dx.doi.org/10.2788/69609
82.  Seligson, M. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 408-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00132
83.  Sequeira, S., & Djankov, S. (2014). Corruption and firm behavior: Evidence from African ports. Journal of International Economics, 94(2), 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2014.08.010
84.  Swardt, C. (2021). 1993–2020: TI: A short history of holding the powerful to account. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76540-8_2
85.  Taboli, H., Samie’e Darooneh, M., & Ehsani, A. (2019). Administrative corruption: Why and how. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Science, 8(3), 282-288. https://doi.org/10.33945/SAMI/IJASHSS.2019.3.6
86.  Thomann, E., Ioannidis, G., Zgaga, T., & Schwarz, F. (2025). Explaining public sector corruption: the hexagon model. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70000
87.  Thompson, D. F. (1993). Mediated Corruption: The Case of the Keating Five American Politicians. Science Review, 87, 369-381. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939047
88.  TRACE International. (2021). TRACE releases 2021 Bribery Risk Matrix.
89.  Transparency International. (2000). New corruption indexes of Transparency International: Wide range of scores.
90.  Transparency International. (2021). What is corruption? Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org
91.  Tsao, Y., & Hsueh, S. J. (2022). Can the country's perception of corruption change? Evidence of Corruption Perception Index. Public Integrity, 25(5), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2022.2054571
92.  Turner, F., & Martz, J. (1997). Institutional confidence and democratic consolidation in Latin America. Studies in Comparative International Development, 32(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687331
93.  Uberti, L. J. (2021). Corruption and growth: Historical evidence, 1790–2010. Journal of Comparative Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2021.10.002
94.  Vian, T. (2008). Review of corruption in the health sector: theory, methods and interventions. Health Policy and Planning, 23(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czm048
95.  Viharos, Z. J., Hoang, A. T., Kálmán, B. G., & Huff, E. B. (2026). Ai-powered insights on global corruption: A multiview analysis. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.15196/RS160102
96.  Vretenar, N., Filipas, A. M., & Briš Alić, M. (2023). Business' attitudes towards corruption in selected central European countries. Central European Public Administration Review, 21(2), 29-52. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2023.2.02
97.  Wang, H., & Rosenau, J. N. (2001). Transparency international and corruption as an issue of global governance. Global Governance, 7(1), 25-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800285
98.  World Bank. (2005). Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
99.  World Bank. (2009). Enterprise Surveys: What Businesses Experience. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
100.                      World Bank. (2020). Helping countries combat corruption: The role of the World Bank. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org
101. Yarovenko, H., Bilovodska, V., & Bylbas, R. (2025). Digital readiness of European Countries to combat corruption and cyber threats: Panel analysis. Business Ethics and Leadership. https://doi.org/10.61093/bel.9(2).238-265.2025
102. Yilmaz, B. (2006). Bertelsmann Transformation Index: Towards democracy and a market economy. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://research.sabanciuniv.edu/id/eprint/1076
103. You, J. S. (2015). Development of corruption control in South Korea. German Institute of Global and Area Studies, 1-37.
دوره 4، شماره 12
تابستان 1405
صفحه 219-273

  • تاریخ دریافت 16 اردیبهشت 1405
  • تاریخ بازنگری 22 تیر 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش 24 تیر 1405