ABSTRACT
In 2006, in a speech given at the London School of Economics, Transparency International’s (TI) former Chief Executive, David Nussbaum, argued for a new approach to combating corruption that takes into account the role that personal values play in moral decision-making related to corrupt practice. He explained,
[i]n the case of values-based decisions like whether or not to bribe or accept a bribe, values and ethics can form a sort of threshold, establish under what emotional and external circumstances – if any – you may say yes. Your social environment, the level of trust you have in those around you, how you see this affecting people you care about, will also come into play; but your values will be a fundamental guide in making these decisions.
(Nussbaum 2006: 13) He highlighted research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis that concluded that “‘A belief in hell tends to mean less corruption and less corruption tends to mean a higher per capita income . . . therefore all else being equal, the more religious a country, the less corruption it will have and the higher its per capita income”’ (cited in Nussbaum 2006: 14).1 However, Nussbaum cautioned that he was not launching a campaign to promote belief in hell as a way to fight corruption but recognising that current anti-corruption approaches are not providing the level of success desired and are failing to examine why individuals choose to be corrupt.