The November 2, 2010, seminar was presented by Dennis Thompson, Alfred North Whitehead Professor of Political Philosophy at Harvard University and Director Emeritus of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. Thompson's working paper on two concepts of corruption (individual vs. institutional) provided the main topic of discussion, in which participants attempted to work out a satisfactory definition for the term "institutional corruption." The paper distinguishes institutional corruption from individual corruption (e.g., bribery) institutional corruption occurs when an institution or its agent receives a benefit that is directly useful to performing an institutional function, and systematically provides a service to the benefactor under conditions that tend to undermine legitimate procedures of the institution.
Thompson opened the discussion by emphasizing the importance of adopting a specific concept when thinking about institutional corruption, pointing out that it is not merely a matter of defining the term "institutional corruption," but rather of establishing a particular concept which will serve as a frame for research and attempts at reform. In attempting to construct such a frame, seminar participants debated the views presented in Thompson's article, with the discussion revolving around ideas of dependency, fairness, and public trust.
There was some discussion about whether the notion of proper vs. improper dependency should be a primary factor in the definition of institutional corruption. While the idea of dependency is central to Lawrence Lessig's definition, Thompson includes undue dependence as one factor that violates legitimate procedures but does not see it as a necessary condition of institutional corruption. It was in this context that the idea of fairness was introduced to the discussion, with some participants noting that, regardless of dependency, a basic notion of fairness should inform our understanding of institutional corruption. For example, perhaps it is not that everyone should have precisely equal access, but that the price for getting access shouldn't be so high--and that improper dependencies aside, there is something inherently unfair, and therefore institutionally corrupt, about such a system. There was some debate on this point, particularly around whether unequal access should be termed a form of institutional corruption when it does not evince an improper dependency. In Thompson's view only forms of fairness determined by institutional procedures are relevant to institutional corruption. Otherwise the problem is not distinct from injustice in general in the society.
Participants also discussed the role that public trust should play in the definition of institutional corruption. Some felt that it was a necessary component, while others felt that having it as part of the definition provides an unnecessary complication. In Thompson's view, public distrust is a likely consequence of institutional corruption, but not a necessary condition for its existence.It was pointed out that the trust of the public can sometimes be misplaced and therefore is not always a valid determinant of the corruption that may exist in a particular institution. Even so, there was agreement that public trust is an important facet to consider, with some suggesting that it be the aim of any reforms or regulations, but not necessarily a primary component of the definition.
In summary, participants considered an alternative interpretation of the concept of institutional corruption, while focusing on the roles of several specific ideas, including dependency, fairness, and public trust.