Nepotism, favoritism and cronyism as a source of conflict of interest: corruption or not?

Anna Tytko; Mykhailo Smokovych; Yuliia Dorokhina; Olena Chernezhenko; Serhii Stremenovskyi

doi:10.34069/AI/2020.29.05.19

Anna Tytko National Academy of Internal Affairs, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5669-2208
Mykhailo Smokovych National University of Ostroh Academy, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1710-4044
Yuliia Dorokhina Vernadsky Taurida National University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2799-3933
Olena Chernezhenko National Academy of Internal Affairs, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4344-2605
Serhii Stremenovskyi International Classic University, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6547-2576

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.29.05.19

Keywords: favoritism; cronyism; nepotism; nepotism; conflict of interests; clientelism; loyalty.

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to analyze the concepts of “nepotism”, “favoritism” and “cronyism” as the forms of conflict of interest, as well as to identify the relationship between the dissemination of these phenomena in the context of conflict of interest and the determinants of the latter. Methodology. Taking into account the purpose of the article, the links between the corruption and nepotism, cronyism, favoritism as forms of conflict of interest have been defined based on the method of a systematic analysis. The logical method, as well as comparative and legal method helped to analyze the concepts of “nepotism”, “сronуіsm”, “favoritism” and “clientelism”. The method of induction and deduction enabled to distinguish the key features of favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism. The method of hermeneutics allowed to interpret the above concepts through the prism of the features of corruption. The system and structural method made it possible to make a logical connection between the conflict of interest and the manifestation of favoritism, nepotism and cronyism. The legal modeling method was helpful in drawing conclusions of the research. The results of the study. The pros and cons of using family ties and friendly relations, depending on the scope of nepotism, favoritism and cronyism have been identified as a result of a study. The connection between these phenomena and the spread of conflicts of interest in the public service has been examined. Practical implications. An attempt to identify favoritism, nepotism and cronyism as the form of conflict of interest has been made, as well as some recommendations to amend the relevant legal acts have been provided. Value / originality. For the first time, the authors examined the possibility of having positive results from using nepotism, cronyism and favoritism in forming business environment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Anna Tytko, National Academy of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.

PhD in Law, Leading Research Associate of the Scientific Laboratory on Problems Counteracting of Crime of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.

Mykhailo Smokovych, National University of Ostroh Academy, Ukraine.

Doctor of Law, Honoured Lawyer of Ukraine, Associate Professor of the Department of Municipal Law and Administrative Law Disciplines of I. Malynovskyi Institute of Law of the National University of Ostroh Academy, Ukraine.

Yuliia Dorokhina, Vernadsky Taurida National University

Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Special Legal Disciplines of V.I. Vernadsky Taurida National University, Ukraine.

Olena Chernezhenko, National Academy of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.

Doctor of Law, Senior Research Fellow of the Scientific Laboratory for Counteracting Crime Problems of the Educational and Scientific Institute №1 of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.

Serhii Stremenovskyi, International Classic University, Ukraine.

PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Jurisprudence of Pylyp Orlyk International Classic University, Ukraine.

References

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2014). Relatives in the same university faculty: nepotism or merit? Scientometrics, 101, 737–749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1273-z.

Business dictionary (2020). Favoritism. Available at http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/favoritism.html.

Chudinov, A. N. (1910). The Dictionary of Foreign Words. St. Petersburg: V. I. Hubynskyi Publishing House. 676 p. (in Russian).

Fukuyama, Francis (2016). What is corruption? Available at http://www.ridge.uy/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Fukuyama_Francis.pdf.

Goman, C. K. (1991). The Loyalty Factor: Building Trust in Today’s Workplace. New York: MasterMedia, Ltd.

Hicken, Allen (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289–310. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508.

International Republican Institute & the Government of Canada (2015). Ukrainian Municipal Survey (March 2 – 20, 2015). Available at https://m.znaj.ua/news/society/5060/-korupciya-i-kumivstvo-hvilyuyut-ukrayinciv-najbilshe-socopituvannya.htm (in Ukrainian).

Jaskiewicz, P., Uhlenbruck, K., Balkin, D. B., & Reay, T. (2013). Is nepotism good or bad? Types of nepotism and implications for knowledge management. Family Business Review, 26(2), 121 – 139.

Keefer, Philip & Vlaicu, Razvan (2008). Democracy, Credibility, and Clientelism. The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 24(2), 371–406. DOI: 10.1093/jleo/ewm054.

Kerse G. & Babadağ, M. (2018). I’m Out If Nepotism is in: The Relationship Between Nepotism, Job Standardization and Turnover Intention. Ege Academic Review, 18 (4), 631–644, DOI: 10.21121/eab.2018442992.

Khatri, N. & Tsang Eric, W. K. (2019) Antecedents and Consequences of Cronyism in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 43(4), 289 – 303.

Komliev, N. G. (2000). Dictionary of Foreign Words. Moscow: EXMO-Press. 1168 p. (in Russian).

Kopystyra, A. M. (2013). Typology of corruption in Ukraine. Innovative Economy, 8, 43–46 (in Ukrainian).

Kreimer, D., Nurik, R. & Sushko, O. (2012). Alarm signal – Round 2: Protecting Democracy in Ukraine. An addendum to the Freedom House Report (July, 2012). Kyiv: Freedom House. 20 p. (in Ukrainian).

Kwon, Illoong (2006). Endogenous Favoritism in Organizations. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics. Vol. 6, Issue 1, 1–24.

Maiz, R. & Requejo, R. (2001). Clientelism as a Political Incentive Structure for Corruption. Draft. University of Santiago de Compostela, Chille. Available at https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/14a6a1a6-d5ef-4208-b583-4010c389bdec.pdf.

Matsiievskyi Yu. V. (2010). Looking to the Future: scenarios for involving defective democracy in Ukraine. Scientific works of Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University. Series: Political science. VoL. 149, Issue 137, 14–20. (in Ukrainian).

Padgett, M. Y. & Morris, K. A. (2005). Keeping it “All in the family”: Does nepotism in the hiring process really benefit the beneficiary? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), 34–45. DOI: 10.1177/107179190501100205.

Safina, D. M. (2013). The influence of favoritism and nepotism on organizational and economic development. Discussion, 10, 89 – 94 (in Russian).

Siegert, A. (2008). Transmigration of High-qualified Personnel – Challenge for Staff Management. Forsyth, 4(8), 10–21.

Zaykov, D. Е. (2017). The specifics of the legal regulation of countering nepotism in labor relations. Journal of the Higher School of Economics: Series “Law”, 2, 102–115 (in Russian).