Learning Corruption: Small-Scale Educational Corruption and Social Capital in Romania

(1)

Learning Corruption: Small-Scale Educational

Corruption and Social Capital in Romania

An investigation of small-scale educational corruption in

pre-university education in Romania, and its implications for

young Romanians’ social capital.

Alexandra Biris June 19, 2020, Amsterdam

Supervisor: Dr. Rosanne Elisabeth Tromp Second reader: Dr. Nicky Pouw

MSc Thesis in International Development Studies Student number: 11310561

(2)

2

Abstract

Small-scale educational corruption carries serious consequences for the core functions of education. Scholars have argued that students who engage in corrupt practices in their education have a disincentive to learn, adopt the wrong social norms, and cause future employers to lose trust in the abilities of graduates. Empirically, however, the current literature has focused on the negative consequences of educational corruption for students’ human capital, while it has overlooked the implications of such practices for students’ social capital, the promotion of which is considered one of the important core functions of education. Consequently, this research investigates the context of Romania, where educational corruption is perceived to be highly pervasive. Specifically, the study investigates young Romanians’ perceptions of small-scale educational corruption, meaning educational corruption which directly involves students, and how such practices interact with their social trust, social norms, and social networks. To this end, the study analyses qualitative data gathered through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with young Romanians. The study finds that small-scale educational corruption, in its many forms, is perceived to have both negative and positive implications for young Romanians’ social capital. While social trust and the norm of reciprocity are perceived to be undermined by small-scale educational corruption, young Romanians considered it to strengthen their belief in the norm of universalism, and to promote their voluntary participation. These findings suggest that the literature should introduce more nuance by acknowledging these complex and ambiguous implications of small-scale educational corruption. Nevertheless, this conclusion does not imply that these perceived benefits warrant a lack of intervention. On the contrary, it acknowledges the burden small-scale educational corruption represents for students, and recommends that, as young Romanians are motivated by such practices to stand up for their rights, preventative policies should embrace the activism of students in eradicating educational corruption.

KEY WORDS: small-scale corruption, corruption, education, social capital, trust, Romania, democracy.

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

It takes a village. This research would not only not have been possible, it also would not have been half as enjoyable, without the help and support of a village of people. Firstly, I want to thank Rosanne, my supervisor, for believing in this research, and for her invaluable feedback and encouragement, especially when the subject matter ruffled a few feathers. I also want to extend a thank you to all the staff at the Master of International Development Studies, for creating an environment which fosters creativity and allows for independence. I want to thank my dedicated local supervisor from the Romanian Academic Society, Constantin-Alexandru Manda, without whom I would not have reached half of the young participants who were kind enough to take part in this study. Alex, your work and activism for education is essential, and you inspire young Romanians all over the country, and now also abroad. I am especially grateful for all of the wonderful, courageous, and bright young people who participated in this research. Thank you for taking the time and for sharing your stories and experiences with me with such enthusiasm. I dedicate this research to you, and future generations of young Romanians. Last, but not least, I want to give a heartfelt thanks to my family, wherever you may be, for helping me re-integrate in Romania, and for having made that period seem much less like fieldwork, and more like being at home.

(4)

4

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Conceptual scheme………24

Figure 2. Map of Romania………...……….34

Table 1. Operationalization table………..86

(7)

7

List of Abbreviations

CCTV Closed-Circuit Television

DNA National Anti-Corruption Directorate

EU European Union

GDP Gross Domestic Product GPA Grade Point Average

NGO Non-Governmental Organization PSD Social Democrat Party

SAR Romanian Academic Society

(8)

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Education is sometimes regarded as a solution to all social ills (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000). Research into the benefits of education has repeatedly shown that education strengthens both human capital, that is, the knowledge and productivity of people, and social capital, that is, the networks of social relationships between groups and individuals (Green, Preston, & Janmaat, 2006; Helliwell & Putnam, 1999). Thus, education is rightfully considered an essential public good (Heyneman, 2004), and often also a source of development and modernization (Tropp, 1965). Echoing the sentiment that education greatly benefits development, Benjamin Higgins (1963) said, “When in doubt, educate.” (p. 233).

However, a relatively smaller body of literature suggests that the impact of education is not always strictly beneficial, arguing instead that under certain circumstances, education can carry negative implications for both individuals and society. Bush and Saltarelli (2000) refer to this ambiguity as the ‘two faces of education’. The authors argue that education can indeed contribute to the prosperity of a society, but in some cases, education can also, for example, contribute to the erosion of social cohesion by fuelling ethnic hatred (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000). Thus, it is important that the potentially ambiguous implications of education are acknowledged and explored, to facilitate a deeper understanding of how education impacts the individuals who take part in it, and by extension, society as a whole.

1.1. Research problem

Consequently, this thesis explores the ambiguity of education by investigating a subject which continues to receive relatively little attention in academic research (Shaw, 2005), namely, educational corruption. While corruption occurring in areas such as politics, healthcare, or law enforcement has been studied closely due to the negative implications associated with the malfunctioning of these sectors (Polinski & Shavell, 2001; Shleifer & Vishny, 1993; Vian, 2008), research on corruption in the education system continues to be relatively scarce. This is unfortunate, as Heyneman, Anderson, and Nuraliyeva (2008) argue that “corruption in education can be worse than corruption in the police, customs service, or other areas because it contains both immoral and illegal elements and involves either minors or young people” (p. 3).

Subsequently, scholars who have addressed this subject have argued that the costs of educational corruption are significant, in that it destroys the education system’s core functions

(9)

9 of knowledge transfer and socialization (Heyneman, 2011; Mungiu-Pippidi & Dusu, 2011; Osipian, 2007). Heyneman (2004) defines educational corruption as “the abuse of authority for personal as well as material gain” within the education system (p. 637), which can include, but is not limited to, practices such as bribery, nepotism, and embezzlement of educational funds (Heyneman, 2004; Rumyantseva, 2005).

Indeed, existing empirical studies suggest that corruption affects educational outcomes negatively, for example, students’ academic performance in maths and sciences (Huang, 2008). The argument is that, if students perceive educational corruption to be a shortcut to achieving better grades or to obtain a degree, this will cause students to opt for engaging in corruption, instead of being incentivised to study hard and learn (Hallak & Poisson, 2007; Huang, 2008). Hence, there is some empirical evidence to support the notion that educational corruption undermines the development of students’ human capital, an important core function of education.

However, despite scholars often arguing that the benefits of education expand well beyond the instrumental value of knowledge transfer, what continues to remain under-researched within this body of literature are the impacts of educational corruption on the social functions of education. Such functions include the transmission of social values and norms to students, and the promotion of solidarity, trust, and political engagement (Haimi Adnan & Smith, 2001). In other words, one of the essential functions of education is the promotion of students’ social capital. Onyx and Bullen (2000) refer to social capital as the “basic raw material of civil society” (p. 24), as it has been found to be an essential component of a well-functioning society and democracy (Jennings & Stoker, 2004; Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2016).

While empirical studies are lacking, some scholars have implied that educational corruption also disrupts these social functions of education. For example, Meier (2005) suggests that “perhaps the highest cost of corruption in education is the loss of trust” (p. 7). Teodorescu and Andrei (2009) assert that educational corruption causes students to “leave college with […] questionable ethical foundations” (p. 267). However, while arguments outlining the potentially negative implications of educational corruption for students’ social capital do feature in this body of literature, as of now, there is little empirical research to adequately support these arguments.

Moreover, the current academic literature on this subject is further restricted by the fact that it almost exclusively examines educational corruption in higher education and rarely features the perspectives of students themselves on educational corruption (Heyneman et al., 2008; Osipian, 2007; Petrov & Temple, 2004; Rumyantseva, 2005). Thus, this entails that there

(10)

10 is a research gap regarding educational corruption occurring at the level of pre-university education, and a need to gain an insight into how students themselves experience and perceive educational corruption, and how it affects their social capital.

1.2. Research aim

The purpose of this research is to bridge the research gap outlined above, by exploring how small-scale educational corruption interacts with the social functions of education. Small-scale educational corruption refers to such practices which directly involve students (Rumyantseva, 2005), and will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. To achieve this aim, this research analyses qualitative data collected through in-depth interviews with young Romanians to examine their perceptions of small-scale educational corruption in pre-university education and how they perceive such practices to interact with their own social capital.

Romania represents a good opportunity to address this issue because of the high levels of perception of educational corruption reported in recent years. According to the European Quality of Life survey (2016), Romanian ranks highest in perceptions of educational corruption in the European Union (EU). Additionally, research also suggests that Romania endures persistently low levels of social capital, particularly on measures of social trust (Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2016). Despite this, only a few academic studies have carried out empirical research on educational corruption in Romania, and even so, those studies have focused largely on the costs to human capital rather than social capital (see, for example, Borcan, Lindahl, & Mitrut, 2017). Subsequently, this makes Romania particularly suited to investigate the relationship between educational corruption and students’ social capital.

Importantly, this study does not seek to investigate the illicit aspects of educational corruption, nor form a normative judgement about the individuals who engage in such practices. Instead, the aim is to gain insight into the implications of educational corruption for social capital as perceived by young Romanians.

1.3. Academic and social relevance

It is important to address the current research gap in order to generate empirical data that can facilitate a better understanding of how educational corruption affects the social functions of education. Ultimately, this can facilitate future research into the implications of educational corruption and aid in designing and implementing measures to prevent corrupt practices in the

(11)

11 education system.

Romanian scholar Gabriel Bădescu (2011) suggests that educational corruption and social capital are intimately linked. In fact, Bădescu (2011) asserts that educational corruption is the key concept in understanding Romanians’ low social capital, and in turn, understanding Romania’s struggle to curtail overall corruption and to maintain a healthy democracy. Referring to theories of social trust, he claims that it is likely that educational corruption has a negative impact on the trust of students, their trust in each other, in persons of authority (such as teachers), and in institutions (Bădescu, 2011). Additionally, while it is important to understand what students do not learn due to educational corruption, as shown by Huang (2008), Teodorescu and Andrei (2009) suggest that it is important to also explore what students do learn from corruption, such as which social norms and values they adopt and continue to live by after their education. Finally, it is also crucial to understand the ways in which educational corruption is connected with students’ social networks, whereby, for example, family connections promote educational corruption (Chapman & Lindner, 2016), or conversely, educational corruption prevents students from building meaningful social connections due to the inequality it entails. In other words, existing scholarship warrants empirical examination of these hypothesized interconnections between educational corruption and social capital.

In addition to its empirical relevance, this subject also carries societal importance due to the wider implications of educational corruption. Educational corruption presents a big challenge to development in Romania, as it reduces the quality of education, which in turn, disadvantages both the students themselves and society at large, in the long term (Borcan et al, 2017). Furthermore, educational corruption cannot be separated from the kinds of corruption occurring in other sectors, such as politics and health care (Mungiu-Pippidi & Dusu, 2011), as educational corruption is argued to promote the functioning of society according to the norms of corruption. In other words, if children learn from a young age that rules can be bent or circumvented at a price, it is probable that they, as the future leaders of Romania, will continue to adopt corrupt practices later in life (Heyneman et al., 2008). Thus, educational corruption is an issue that extends beyond the school walls, and carries large implications for students themselves, but also for the society and democracy of Romania. A better understanding of the costs of small-scale educational corruption can contribute to the successful implementation of more effective anti-corruption measures. In response to the research gap outlined above, the main research question and complementary sub-questions are presented below.

(12)

12

1.4. Research questions

Main research question: How do young Romanians experience small-scale educational corruption at the level of pre-university education, and how do they perceive it to be related to their social capital?

Sub-questions:

1. What examples of small-scale educational corruption do young Romanian perceive to occur in pre-university education?

2. How do young Romanians characterize small-scale educational corruption? 3. How do young Romanians perceive the interplay between small-scale

educational corruption and their social trust?

4. How do young Romanians perceive the interplay between small-scale educational corruption and their social norms?

5. How do young Romanians perceive the interplay between small-scale educational corruption and their social networks?

1.5. Overview of the thesis

The thesis proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 introduces existing theoretical positions and justifies the theoretical approach taken by this study. This chapter concludes by introducing the conceptual scheme, which positions the concepts and their components in relation to each other, as well as situating the concepts within the wider context of overall corruption and democracy. Chapter 3 outlines the methodological approach employed in this research, and includes reflections regarding ethics, positionality, and limitations. Chapter 4 provides an insight into the cultural, political, and historical context of Romania. The first empirical chapter, chapter 5, responds to the first two sub-questions, providing a descriptive account of young Romanians’ perceptions of the types of educational corruption they have encountered, the actors involved, and the causes and consequences. Chapter 6, the second empirical chapter, responds to the remaining three sub-questions, offering an analytical account of the perceived interconnections between young Romanians’ experiences with small-scale educational corruption and their social capital. This chapter addresses each of the three components of social capital separately for the purpose of clarity, and concludes by analysing the comprehensive effect of small-scale educational corruption on young Romanian’s social capital. The thesis concludes with chapter

(13)

13 7, where the main findings and wider implications of the findings are discussed in relation to the main research question, along with recommendations for future research and policy.

(14)

14

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework

2.1. Introduction

This chapter outlines the theoretical approach guiding this study. The theoretical positions on the main concepts derive from a rigorous review of the existing literature on corruption, educational corruption, and social capital. To construct the most appropriate theoretical approach for the research context, this chapter specifically draws upon a variety of research by Romanian scholars. The chapter begins with a discussion on the concept of corruption and various viewpoints on its connotations. Following, the chapter outlines the literature on educational corruption, discussing the existing knowledge and elaborating on the current research gap. The proceeding section delineates the concept of social capital and its three components, social trust, norms, and networks. Then, the chapter brings together the insights gathered from the literature review to discuss the theoretical relationship between educational corruption and social capital, and the wider implications for overall corruption and democracy. Finally, the conceptual scheme illustrates these theorized relationships in a visual format.

2.2. The concept of corruption and its connotations

Corruption is a widely contested term, with many different definitions available depending on the specific area of study (Osipian, 2007). Broadly, the United Nations (UN) defines corruption as “the abuse of (public) power for private gain (direct or indirect) that hampers the public interest” (UN, 2001, p. 16). Often, corruption violates existing laws prohibiting such practices, making it overtly illegal. For example, bribes consisting of payments for goods or services that should legally be accessed without cost, constitute illegal corruption (Heyneman et al., 2008). However, in other cases, laws explicitly prohibiting practices which entail an abuse of public power for private gain do not exist. In such cases, these practices constitute legal corruption (Kaufmann & Vicente, 2011; Torsello & Venard, 2016). Hence, due to this plurality of laws, illegality is not often included in the many definitions of corruption, as illegality is not a necessary condition for a practice to constitute corruption. Despite the large range of acts and practices this UN definition encapsulates, common to all corruption is that by engaging in such practices, the actors involved benefit at the expense of others, undermining the equal and fair treatment of all individuals (Mungiu-Pippidi & Dusu, 2011). In other words, corruption subverts the principles of equality and fairness.

(15)

15 While some scholars point out that corruption can in some cases improve the quality of public service provision by “greasing the wheels” (Osipian, 2007, p. 317), most condemn corruption as a practice carrying large negative consequences (Torsello & Venard, 2016). Subsequently, corruption is most often viewed with a negative connotation. Some negative consequences include the undermining of popular trust in political decision-making, reinforcement of inequalities between social groups, and even a loss in gross domestic product (GDP) (Bădescu , 2011; Chapman & Lindner, 2016; Heyneman, 2004). As such, the literature tends to characterize corruption as a barrier to modernization and democratization, and it generally associates corruption with illegitimate or traditional types of governance (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2005). Hence, corruption has sometimes been referred to as a Western concept, used to delegitimize non-Western, non-democratic political regimes which govern according to different principles than those of democratic governments (Hallak & Poisson, 2007). However, it is important to acknowledge that, in fact, corruption occurs in all types of regimes and countries, regardless of the type of political regime (Mungiu-Pippidi & Dusu, 2011).

Thus, taking into account these connotations surrounding corruption, the concept can be problematic for several reasons. The primary concern for this study is that these established definitions of corruption as a way to seek private gain at the expense of others imply a certain level of agency on behalf of the actors carrying out such actions. In other words, such definitions often frame corruption as something socially undesirable, which profit-maximising individuals choose to engage in to obtain a personal benefit at the cost of others (Torsello & Venard, 2016). Within the context of this research, it might be reductive to assume that corruption is driven solely by a voluntary, individualistic desire to seek a private benefit. Corruption can be driven by a sense of necessity, or without voluntary participation. For example, a student can be forced to pay an illegal fee by a teacher. Conversely, engaging in corruption might be perceived as necessary for survival, like in the case of bribing a health care worker to access urgent and medically necessary care (Fărcășanu, 2010). Hence, the characterization that corruption is solely carried out for private gain and implies a voluntary, deliberate action, lacks nuance. It follows that the present study, in particular as it pertains to corruption which might be considered a way to access a vital public good, education, must reflect the complexities of such practices.

In response to the complexity of the concept and the focus of this research, I adopt Romanian academic Alina Mungiu-Pippidi’s (2005) theoretical viewpoint on corruption. Her position is not focused on the individual agents who seek private gain, but focuses rather on the social conditions which facilitate such practices. Mungiu-Pippidi and Dusu (2011) argue that

(16)

16 while corruption has existed “for all times and in all societies” (p. 533), what distinguishes between societies with individual instances of corruption and societies with systemic corruption is that the latter entails corruption occurring as a form of social organization. Mungiu-Pippidi (2005) argues corruption in Romania to be a symptom of the norm of particularism, meaning a society “in which the standards for the way a person should be treated depend on the group to which the person belongs” (p. 50), as opposed to a society organized according to the norm of universalism, whereby everyone is treated equally regardless of their social group membership. In other words, corruption can be argued to be the order of the day in Romania. Thus, I use the term educational corruption to refer to practices which undermine universalism, regardless of whether they are illegal or not, or whether actors engage in it voluntarily or not. In other words, such practices within the Romanian education system which afford some students advantages over others, where officially all students should be treated equally and fairly1. Educational corruption will be discussed in further detail in the next section of this chapter. This approach towards corruption is better suited for this research, as I do not seek to investigate and attribute blame, nor to formulate normative judgements. Rather, I aim to understand how such practices occur and how they interact with the social capital of young people.

2.3. Educational corruption and the current research gap

Heyneman’s (2004) defines educational corruption as “the abuse of authority for personal as well as material gain” (p. 637). Hallak and Poisson (2007) develop this definition further by adding that the impact of educational corruption is “significant on the availability and quality of educational goods and services, and, as a consequence on access, quality or equity in education” (p. 29). While these definitions pertain to corruption occurring specifically within the education sector, they encompass a variety of different levels of occurrence (e.g. Ministry of Education), level of education (e.g. higher education), actors involved (e.g. students), and types of corruption (e.g. nepotism in hiring teachers), as well as associated costs of educational corruption (e.g. lowered quality of education) (Hallak & Poisson, 2007).

The existing literature offers different typologies of educational corruption (see Chapman &Lindner, 2016; Hallak & Poisson, 2007; Rymyantseva, 2005), of which Rumyantseva’s (2005) typology is among the most frequently cited (Sabic-El-Rayess & Mansur, 2016). What distinguishes Rumyantseva’s (2005) typology from other typologies is

(17)

17 that it differentiates not according to the type of educational corruption, but according to whether the educational corruption directly involves students or not. Rumyantseva (2005) categorizes educational corruption by actors involved, meaning student and faculty, student and administration, or student and other educational staff. Educational corruption which directly involves students is referred to as small-scale corruption, and can include practices such as: paying for grades; selling a term paper to a student; and exchanging gifts for favouritism (Rumyantseva, 2005).

Rumyantseva (2005) argues that this distinction is particularly useful when the goal is assessing what the consequences of educational corruption are for the society in which it occurs. Rumyantseva (2005) suggests that small-scale educational corruption undermines the development of a society by negatively influencing its youth, their understanding of what is right and wrong, as well as their skills and capabilities. Conversely, while other types of educational corruption, which do not directly involve students, can be detrimental to education systems, such types of educational corruption are likely too far removed to directly influence students’ “values, beliefs, and opportunities” (Rumyantseva, 2005, p. 86).

Notably, most scholars, including Rumyantseva (2005), focus on educational corruption occurring within higher education (for example, Hallak & Poisson, 2007; Petrov & Temple, 2004, Sabic-El-Rayess & Mansur, 2016). However, scholars argue that it is not corruption at the level of higher education that constitute the largest costs to society, but rather corruption that directly involves students and that occurs at the level of pre-university education (Hallak & Poisson, 2007; Heyneman et al., 2008). This kind of corruption is considered the most detrimental because due to their young age, young students are especially susceptible to adopting the values and norms reflected in corrupt practices (Hallak & Poisson, 2007; Rumyantseva, 2005). Furthermore, student engagement in corrupt practices in pre-university education has been found to be a strong predictor of students engaging in future corruption, during their university education, for example (Shaw, 2005). Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that, because enrolment rates for pre-university education tend to be much higher than at higher education, small-scale corruption in pre-university education affects a bigger population of students, and thus, has a higher potential for influencing society as a whole.

Despite these arguments, as mentioned above, very little empirical research on educational corruption has been done at the level of pre-university education. In response to this gap in the current literature, this thesis will focus on educational corruption in pre-university education. It will take small-scale educational corruption, which involves student directly, as its conceptual focus. This is not to suggest that educational corruption that occurs

(18)

18 outside the school or takes place without the direct involvement of students (such as embezzlement of funds at the level of the Ministry of Education) does not entail negative consequences for students’ education. Instead, this theoretical approach is guided by the arguments made in existing literature and the current lack of empirical research. This particular type of educational corruption occurring in pre-university education is, according to the literature, most likely to have large implications for students’ social development.

As briefly mentioned in the introduction, the literature largely distinguishes between two types of costs of educational corruption, loss of human capital and loss of social capital (Heyneman et al., 2008). The cost to human capital refers to educational corruption undermining the incentive for students to study and achieve good grades, as they learn that hard work can be avoided through corrupt means. On the other hand, the cost to social capital refers to the negative effects related to the socialization of students (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), for example, through the promotion of questionable values and norms (Teodorescu & Andrei, 2009). In other words, students do not only suffer due to educational corruption because they learn less, but also because they learn the ‘wrong’ values and norms. Additionally, several scholars have specifically mentioned the loss of trust to be a significant social cost of educational corruption (Heyneman, 2004; Meier, 2005; Rumyantseva, 2004).

However, it is important to distinguish between how the current literature conceptualizes the subversion of students’ social norms compared to the loss of trust. While the argument that educational corruption subverts students’ norms and values pertains directly to students’ own social capital, the argument regarding the loss of social trust does not. Rather than theorizing the potential loss of social trust among students themselves as a result of observing or engaging in educational corruption, scholars have mainly been concerned about educational corruption undermining future “employers and the general public’s trust” in the instrumental value of education (Rumyantseva, 2005, p. 83). Thus, what remains undertheorized is the effect on the social trust of students themselves, and whether educational corruption can potentially influence their trust in each other, their teachers, and political institutions. Hence, this research aims to investigate the interconnections between small-scale educational corruption and each of the components of social capital as perceived by young Romanians themselves.

(19)

19

2.4. Social capital

Although many scholars have contributed to the development of social capital as a concept (see for example Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988), it is primarily associated with the work of American political scientist Robert Putnam (1993), who defines social capital as “those features of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions” (p. 167). Putnam’s social capital theory thus consists of the three aforementioned component, which he argues mutually reinforce each other to provide the foundation for a strong civic society and democracy (Siisianinen, 2000). Thus, if educational corruption is found to undermine social capital, corruption can be expected to disrupt these causal chains between social capital and democracy.

In his seminal study of Italy’s development, Putnam (1993) argues that the answer to the question, ‘What makes democracy work?’, is not the frequently cited determinants of education, wealth, or urbanization, but social capital. In this study, he finds that what explained the difference in democratic governance between northern Italy, characterized by effective regional governance, and southern Italy, characterized by inefficient and corrupt regional governance, was the prolific membership in sports clubs, associations, and choirs in the former, and the lack thereof in the latter (Putnam, 1993). Hence, Putnam (1993) argues that social capital creates the basis for strong representative institutions, economic prosperity, and social development. While social capital consists of these three separate components, they are practically impossible to isolate as they depend on mutual reinforcement and overlap significantly (Siisiainen, 2000). However, for the sake of clarity, each component will be discussed separately below.

Generally, trust is conceptualized as individuals acting for the general good, because people believe that their actions will in turn be reciprocated through the development of communal relations (Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Siisiainen, 2000). More specifically, Fukuyama (1995) asserted that trust is promoted when a group of people have created a set of social guidelines which establish “regular expectations of regular and honest behaviour” (p. 153). Thus, trust is fostered when there is a belief among a community that other members are aware of and respect the social ‘rules of the game’, which in turn incentivises individuals to adopt these behaviours themselves. As such, there is both an individual and collective component to how social trust is established.

This generalized account of social trust can be broken down into separate strands, for example, interpersonal trust (trust in most people, and in one’s kin), institutional trust (for

(20)

20 example, in the education system), and political trust (for example, trust in the parliament) (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2005). Within the scope of this research, it is important to include these different dimensions of trust in order to better understand how experiences with small-scale educational corruption may influence young Romanians’ trust in other people, their peers, teachers, and politicians, and in turn, what the implications are for society and democracy in Romania.

Social norms refer to the informal rules which guide the behaviour of members of a community (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). These are thought to develop through the mutual process of voluntary and equal social interaction. As people trust each other and create social networks, these informal guidelines are created, which further reinforce both social trust and social interaction (Siisiainen, 2000). Societies are normally guided by a myriad of different informal rules for behaviour. For this study, the norms of reciprocity and universalism are particularly important to investigate.

Reciprocity is a prominent norm in most literature on social capital, and which Putnam (2001) also emphasizes. This norm entails people believing that one’s good behaviour towards another person will be reciprocated with another positive action at some point in time (Onyx & Bullen, 2000), or in other words, that good behaviour is rewarded and bad behaviour is punished (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2005). In the case of education, for example, where the expectations generally are that students study and learn, and teachers in turn reward students’ progress, the norm of reciprocity might entail students believing that their hard work will be reciprocated by being graded accordingly. Thus, reciprocity is relevant for the scope of this study, because small-scale educational corruption can be perceived by students as a violation of this norm, potentially leading them to internalise that illicit behaviour, rather than good behaviour, is worthwhile.

The second important norm is universalism, which Mungiu-Pippidi (2005) argues represents the opposite end of the continuum from particularism, which perpetuates, rather than discourages, corruption. Universalism entails the establishment norms and laws according to which people are treated equally and fairly regardless of which social group they belong to (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2005). As such, universalism encourages behaviour that promotes equality, and that is not influenced by the personal characteristics of the individual in question, such as their gender, socio-economic background, or family connections. For example, this might mean that teachers apply the same level of discipline to students who express the same level of disruptive behaviour, regardless of the students’ backgrounds. Small-scale educational corruption might prevent students from forming this norm, as corruption, by definition, violates the norm of equal treatment by benefiting those who engage in it over those who do not. As a

(21)

21 result, students might learn to treat others according to their social group membership. This norm is particularly crucial to explore, because existing literature suggests that one of the costs of educational corruption is that it signals to young people that such acts are worthwhile, potentially incentivising them to become corrupt individuals in the future (Hallak & Poisson, 2007).

Finally, social networks refer to the social relationships and connections formed, primarily through voluntary participation (such as football clubs or church choirs) (Putnam, 1993), but also social relationships (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). While social capital is closely connected to political and democratic engagement, it is noteworthy that it is not only civic or political participation, such as party membership, participating in protests, or political campaigning, that is considered to bolster social capital. Any type of participation which involves horizontal social interactions, where people perceive each other as equals, contributes to the strengthening of trust and norms (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). Thus, conceptually, while voluntary participation and social relationships depend on social trust and expectations that norms are adhered to, social networks in turn produce and strengthen trust and norms, meaning these components are mutually reinforced (Bădescu , 2011).

Siisianinen (2000) refers to social networks as the glue of social capital, as without people interacting with their neighbours, co-workers, and peers, trust and norms are unlikely to develop. However, social networks are necessary but not sufficient for social trust and norms to be strengthened. If relationships within a social network are characterized by inequality or unfairness, such relationships can undermine trust and norms (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). In the case of educational corruption, for example, students might become aware of corrupt practices, such as a fellow student receiving a higher grade through bribery. Such information shared within social circles might then undercut students’ trust and social norms from developing, and in turn, disincentivise students from engaging in future interactions. In other words, exploring how educational corruption interacts with students’ willingness to build meaningful relationships with other members of society is important to understand the implications not only for students individually, but also for collectives, such as a school class.

It follows, then, that social capital is built through individuals coming together, sharing experiences, and creating social rules which guide behaviour and establish expectations for future interactions (Fukuyama, 1995). Positive personal experiences of engaging with others accumulate to inform future behaviour, promoting trust and a willingness to continue to engage in voluntary participation, whereas negative experiences tend to breed distrust, suspicion, and a tendency towards shirking voluntary participation (Bădescu, 2011; Mungiu-Pippidi, 2005).

(22)

22 Thus, the types of experiences an individual has with, for example, educational corruption, can have significant implications for how their social capital develops.

2.5. Situating educational corruption and social capital within a wider

context

The above review of the bodies of literature on educational corruption and social capital suggests that these two concepts cannot be separated from their wider implications for overall corruption and democracy (Bădescu, 2011; Mungiu-Pippidi, 2005). As such, it is important to understand that these concepts are not studied in a vacuum, and to acknowledge the complex interconnections not only between educational corruption and social capital, but the links between educational corruption and corruption in other sectors, and between social capital and democracy.

As already mentioned, educational corruption cannot be detached from other kinds of corruption, as they are considered to create a feedback loop (Hallak & Poisson, 2007). On one hand, if overall corruption is wide-spread, it can explain the occurrence of corruption within the education system. As Mehr Khan states: “The attitudes that flourish beyond the school walls will, inevitably, filter into the classroom” (as cited in Bush & Saltarelli, 2000, p. v). On the other hand, it is argued that as long as educational corruption persists, so will overall levels of corruption, as children adopt norms contrary to democratic principles and the rule of law, such as particularism, at an early age. As Heyneman et al. (2008) argue, “If the education system is corrupt, one can expect future citizens to be corrupt as well” (p. 2). Thus, educational corruption is inextricably linked with overall corruption.

If corruption in all forms become the norm, social capital will continue to be undermined, which carries consequences for the quality of democratic governance. Rothstein (2000, 2005) brings together the concepts of corruption and social trust, by outlining three interlinked causal chains. Rothstein (2000, 2005) argues that corruption undermines social trust because: (1) if people perceive public officials as corrupt, they are more likely to think that people in general cannot be trusted; (2) if public officials are perceived as corrupt, citizens are more likely to believe that people can only obtain their rightful dues by participating in the corruption, and will therefore conclude that most people cannot be trusted; and (3) if people themselves participate in the corruption, they will conclude that as they themselves cannot be trusted, others cannot be trusted either (Bădescu, 2011). In turn, low levels social capital, specifically low trust in fellow citizens, politicians, government, and other institutions,

(23)

23 represent difficult obstacles for democratic governance as this tends to weaken democratic participation and voter turnout (Abramowitz, 2018), undermine political confidence, and undermine appreciation for democracy (Bădescu , 2011).

Thus, social capital and educational corruption are closely connected to the quality of democratic governance and the continuation of corruption. In other words, persisting high levels of corruption and low levels of social capital are destructive of democracy. While this thesis is concerned with only a limited part of this causal chain, meaning the implications of educational corruption on students’ social capital, it is necessary to acknowledge that these concepts cannot be isolated from the wider context, and must also be discussed within this context. The wider implications for overall corruption and democracy will be discussed in the concluding chapter in relation to the main findings.

2.6. Conceptual scheme

The conceptual scheme aims to illustrate the two main concepts of small-scale educational corruption and social capital in relation to each other, as described in this theoretical framework. The conceptual scheme highlights the aspect of mutual reinforcement between the three components of social capital. It also situates the theoretical relationship between small-scale educational corruption and social capital within the wider context of overall corruption (corruption in other sectors) and democratic governance.

(24)

24

(25)

25

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1. Introduction

This chapter outlines and justifies the methodological choices guiding this study. The chapter begins by outlining the research design. Following is the operationalization of the main concepts employed. It proceeds by outlining the unit of analysis and observation, data collection method, sampling and data analysis. The chapter concludes with reflections on ethical considerations and positionality, and the quality and the limitations of the research.

3.2. Research design

This research is a qualitative study within the framework of a cross-sectional design (Bryman, 2012), in that qualitative interviews are employed to gather data from a number of participants at a particular point in time, in this case, in the months of January and February of 2020.

3.3. Operationalization

The operationalization table (Appendix 1.), provides an overview of the two main concepts employed in this research, educational corruption and social capital, and their dimensions, variables, and indicators.

The operationalization of educational corruption derives from the literature review, but is primarily based on the typologies of Rumyantseva (2005), Hallak and Poisson (2007), Petrov and Temple (2004), Sabic-El-Rayess and Mansur (2016), Chapman and Lindner (2016), and Shaw (2005). However, as most of these authors focus on educational corruption at the level of higher education, I have adapted my operationalization to fit the context of small-scale educational corruption in pre-university education in Romania. For example, I have excluded illegally obtaining a university degree, but included the collection of illegal fees.

The operationalization of social capital is primarily based on the work of Putnam (1993, 2001), but also draws insights from Onyx and Bullen (2000), Siisianinen, (2000), Mungiu-Pippidi (2005). As the study investigates young people’s social capital in relation to small-scale educational corruption, this linkage has been taken in consideration when developing the variables and indicators of social capital. For example, interpersonal trust has been

(26)

26 operationalized to include trust in one’s peers instead of trust in one’s kin, and the social norms to include universalism, the belief in the equal treatment of all, regardless of social background.

3.4. Unit of analysis and observation

Young Romanians, specifically secondary school students and recent graduates, constitute the unit of analysis and observation of this research, as the purpose is to understand how they have experienced small-scale educational corruption, and how they perceive it to relate to their own social capital. In light of the sensitivity of the research topic and to avoid potentially placing participants in a difficult position, only participants who were in their final year of high school or had already graduated were included in this research, which resulted in an age range of 17 to 24 years. Because the literature on educational corruption has scarcely featured the perceptions of students themselves on educational corruption, taking students as the unit of both analysis and observation is essential to bridging this gap.

3.5. Data collection methods

As this research focused on exploring young Romanian’s perceptions of the interconnections between small-scale education corruption and their social capital, rather than obtaining a quantitative measure of either concepts, qualitative, semi-structured, and in-depth interviews constituted the method of collecting data.

According to Legard, Keegan, and Ward (2003), the main key feature of this method is that “it is intended to combine structure with flexibility” (p. 141). As such, this type of interview allowed me to employ an interview schedule with a set number of themes and questions, while permitting sufficient flexibility for me to respond to and further explore novel issues or themes brought up by participants. Interviews were conducted until saturation was achieved, at the point where both prepared and novel themes appeared to be fully explored and no new insights seemed to emerge. In total, I conducted 24 such interviews with young Romanians during January and February 2020. The interviews varied in length, between 45 minutes and 120 minutes.

Due to the secretive and often-times subtle nature of corruption, it is very difficult to research. Chapman and Lindner (2016) highlight five main sources of data on corruption in education: surveys of perceptions, surveys that collect reports on behaviour engaged in or observed by the respondent, media accounts, citizen reports, and studies of court records (pp.

(27)

27 250-252), of which surveys of perception of corruption are the most frequently used (Anderson, Cosmaciuc, Dininio, Spector & Zoido-Lobaton, 2001; Hallak & Poisson, 2007). Hence, qualitative interviewing is not a common method of data collection in this body of literature. There are several reasons for why none of the data collection methods listed above were employed. Firstly, surveys were deemed unsuitable for gaining a deeper insight into the perceived interconnections between small-scale educational corruption and social capital, while qualitative interviews provided an opportunity to gather rich data for a more comprehensive analysis. Secondly, as existing media accounts and reports on educational corruption have not significantly reflected the perceptions of young people, but rather the perceptions of faculty and other public officials in the education sector (see Gheorghe, 2016), reviewing such accounts would likely not provide an insight into the perceptions of Romanian students. Thirdly, whereas scholars might have been discouraged from employing qualitative interviews due to concerns about accessing interviewees, it proved to be an excellent method to gather rich data in Romania. Likely because of the openness and normalized nature of corruption in Romania, participants were very keen to share detailed stories of their experiences, describe the individuals involved, the type of corruption, the consequences, and their own feelings

surrounding these events.

3.6 Sampling

Prior to departing to the field, I established contact with the Romanian Academic Society (SAR), a well-known think-tank which works with issues pertaining to corruption and good governance. I worked closely with one of the young project coordinators, who acted as a gate keeper. I gained access to several of my participants using the organizations vast network of young Romanians.

The rest of the participants were reached either through my own personal contacts and through snowball sampling. Participants who were accessed through gate keepers were asked to identify other individuals who might be interested to participate. Thus, this type of snowball sampling involves the first wave of participants identifying the second wave, and so forth (Goodman, 1961). An anonymized table giving an overview of the interviewees is included in the appendix (Appendix 2.).

(28)

28

3.7 Data analysis

Interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed and transferred to ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data management software. The analysis of interview data followed a series of steps. First, to break down the raw data, I used open coding to allocate key themes and variables to the data, such as different types of small-scale educational corruption, as well as identify novel ones, such as fear. This created thematic codes which were entered into a codebook, according to which all subsequent transcripts were coded.

This process was not linear, but rather iterative (Robson, 2002). While allocating thematic codes, I discovered that certain existing codes should be changed, merged, or divided, or that new codes should be added to the codebook. For example, the thematic code ‘fear’ was ultimately divided into ‘fear of backlash’ and ‘fear as a driver of corruption’. When transcripts were fully coded, the emergent pattern was analysed using axial coding, whereby I examined the interconnection between concepts and themes to gain an understanding of how young Romanians perceive their experience with small-scale educational corruption has influenced their social trust, norms, and networks. For example, this process revealed that small-scale educational corruption was framed as promoting the norm of universalism among participants. This process was the basis of the structure of the empirical chapters. Key quotations reflecting important themes were identified and stored on the software for substantiating analysis in the writing up of the research. Quotes which were originally in Romanian have been translated to English, with the original included in a footnote.

3.8 Ethical considerations and positionality

As the research addresses a sensitive subject, several ethical considerations were taken into account. It was crucial that participants were fully informed before consenting to participate and were aware that participation was strictly voluntary and confidential. Because participants were often contacted by a gate keeper first, prior to being contacted by me to verify their interest, participants were given several opportunities to accept or decline. Upon meeting in person, it was again explicitly communicated to all participants that they were under no obligation to participate, they could interrupt the interview at any time, and that they could withdraw their contribution even after participating.

Participants were given an information sheet which summarized the research and their rights accurately and candidly. All participants were asked to read it before the interview. I briefly verbally repeated the most important aspects, before asking whether they had any

(29)

29 questions and whether they consented to being recorded. Participants’ verbal consent was sufficient, as I deemed asking participants to sign a form to be an undue burden on them.

Furthermore, I communicated clearly that my aim in conducting this research was not to make a normative judgement regarding individuals who carry out acts of corruption. I explicitly addressed this with all the participants in order to avoid them potentially feeling criticised or concerned about facing repercussions. I specified that that my interest lied not in attributing blame, but understanding the consequences of small-scale educational corruption for their social capital. It was emphasized that despite the sensitivity and potential illegality of such acts, I was in no way affiliated with any authorities that have the power to sanction such activities. I stated clearly to each participant that the amount and type of information they shared with me was entirely at their discretion. Ultimately, I believe this contributed to a relaxed and safe atmosphere during the interviews, and a reason why participants spoke so openly and extensively about this sensitive topic.

It was important that the encounter between the participants and myself took place in a safe space, as interviews were conducted one-on-one. Thus, interviews were conducted during the day and in public spaces, such as parks, cafes, or hotel lobby. During the initial contact, I encouraged participants to suggest a location, and if they had none, I offered them two or more suggestions from which they could choose, in order to ensure that they had an opportunity to choose the option they were most comfortable with.

Participants’ confidentiality was protected in several ways. During the recording of the interview, I refrained from referring to participants by their name. If they mentioned it themselves, I removed it from the transcription and quotes and replaced it with a note. I did so also with other personal information that might be linked to the participant, such as the name of a friend or teacher. Additionally, both the recordings and transcriptions were kept on a password-protected laptop.

Additionally, it is important to address my own positionality as a Romanian citizen who has been living abroad for most of my life. My nationality has played a big role in my decision to research educational corruption in Romania. Having grown up in Finland, I became fascinated with how different the Finnish and Romanian education systems were at an young age. In some ways, conducting this research in Romania represents fulfilling my responsibility to use the education I have been privileged with to try to understand the complexities of the Romanian education system, and attempt to contribute constructively to improvements.

However, I am well aware that my status as a privileged dual-citizen studying in Amsterdam could have been perceived very differently by my participants. My research could

(30)

30 have been perceived as an opportunity for me to flaunt my privilege, while pointing out the flaws of an education system I barely experienced myself. While perceptions are often difficult to manage or change, I tried to build trust between participants and myself by preceding each interview by thoroughly introducing myself and my background, and the reasons for my interest in this particular subject. I believe participants responded positively to this, and felt comfortable to share very detailed accounts of their experiences and perceptions.

3.9. Quality of research

To assess the quality of the research, a set of criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1986) has been employed. Lincoln and Guba suggest two main criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research, trustworthiness and authenticity. Both criteria are considered in this section.

Trustworthiness

Two components of trustworthiness, credibility and transferability, are discussed in this section. Credibility entails that, despite the possibility for multiple different interpretations of social reality, the researcher has taken appropriate measures to accurately understand the social reality of the participants (Bryman, 2012). Firstly, credibility was promoted by pursuing prolonged engagement with participants and in-depth observation (Lincoln & Guba, 1986, p. 77). This meant that during each in-depth interview, I made sure to allow for enough time to pursue ideas and elements that appeared relevant, whether anticipated or not. Hence, interviews often carried on longer than expected, as new themes or potential contradictions were examined intensively. For example, further examination was required when some participants described themselves to perceive small-scale educational corruption to undermine their chances of getting appropriately rewarded for their hard work or good behaviour, yet maintained that their belief in the principle that good behaviour is always rewarded was not negatively influenced. Furthermore, instead of assuming that my understanding of participants’ accounts was correct, I frequently recounted their accounts in order to confirm my understanding. Additionally, I also conducted so called ‘member-checks’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1986), whereby one participant was asked to react to the anonymous account of another participant, in order to further facilitate a deeper understanding of participants perceptions. I also made a conscious decision to be fully candid about the aims of the research, which I believe ultimately promoted credibility, as

(31)

31 participants could speak in a very direct manner about their experiences and perceptions. While the topic of the study might have discouraged some individuals from participating, the added value was that it fostered trust between participant and researcher, and ultimately promoted the credibility that the subject matter of interest was discussed directly and openly.

Transferability pertains to whether or not research findings from one context can be expected to apply in other contexts (Bryman, 2012). Lincoln & Guba (1986) suggest that qualitative research should provide enough description of the data and context of the research to facilitate others to judge whether or not findings can wholly, or partially, be transferred elsewhere. As such, this thesis includes a contextual chapter, as well as detailed empirical chapters, aiming to provide enough thick description of the Romanian context and participants’ perceptions, experiences, and accounts, for readers to make their own evaluations about the applicability to other environments.

Authenticity

Authenticity pertains largely to the implications of the research for the political and social environments of participants. While several of the components of this criteria are more applicable to action research (Bryman, 2012), the two components of ontological authenticity and educative authenticity pertain equally well to the present research.

Ontological authenticity pertains to whether the research helps the participants understand their own social environment better (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). As research on educational corruption has neglected to thoroughly investigate the experiences of students themselves, this research contributes to the improvement of young Romanians’ understanding of educational corruption and its implications for their social capital by including them directly in the process of closing this gap. Furthermore, I believe that specifically the prompts around the topic of social capital, were experienced to be though-provoking, as many participants expressed that, for example, the discussions about how their interpersonal trust was influenced, were new and interesting to them. Additionally, asking questions not only about the experiences, but about participants’ emotions and reactions to such experiences, helped participants reflect on their own educational experience on a deeper level, prompting many of them to talk about what they wish their education had been like.

Educative authenticity pertains to whether the research has helped participants to better understand the perspectives of other members in their social setting (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). In line with this criterion, I often brought up differing accounts and opinions that I had observed

(32)

32 regarding a particular subject, whether from other interviews or public discourse, and asked participants to reflect on how and why individuals might hold different views. Often, participants expressed both their disagreement and a high level of understanding for opposing perspectives. The most striking example was that many of the participants who strongly opposed educational corruption expressed that they understand why certain individuals engage in such practices.

3.10. Limitations of research

A limitation of the research was that the sample of participants overrepresented young Romanians who are also engaging in different forms of activism within the educational sector. More than half of the participants were involved in a student association or student body, which often take a stance against educational corruption, as it is considered to violate students’ rights. Thus, it is possible that these students may hold slightly different or potentially stronger views against on small-scale educational corruption than some other students. While the accounts of participants who were activists did not differ in significant ways from those who were not involved in student representation, there is a possibility that other, potentially more lenient, perspectives on educational corruption were crowded out due to the composition of the sample. This overrepresentation could be due to a process of self-selection, whereby the participants who consented to being interviewed were more likely to also be individuals who consider educational corruption to be a problem and have mobilized against it, whereas those who are less aware of educational corruption or do not consider it to be a problem may have had less incentive to participate. Such self-selection could be possible as each individual received a complete and candid briefing about the research, which could have encouraged some to participate more than others. Potentially, a vaguer briefing could have facilitated a more balanced sample. However, as the interviews did not reveal significantly different views between activist and non-activist participants, the choice of fully disclosing the research topic to participants was deemed more important, for ethical reasons.

(33)

33

Chapter 4: The research context

4.1. Introduction

This chapter provides further insight into the research context. Romania represents an interesting location for researching small-scale educational corruption and social capital for a number of reasons, and the chapter aims at providing sufficient thick description of the research context for other readers to be able to judge the transferability of the findings of this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). This chapter first outlines Romania’s historical and political development. It then discusses corruption in Romania, introduces the education system, and contextualizes Romanian social capital.

4.2. Geographical and historical background

Romania is a European country situated in the Eastern part of the continent, bordering Hungary and Serbia in the West, and the Black Sea in the East. Bucharest, the capital, is located in the southeast part of the country. Romania has an estimated population of 19,4 million, with a steadily declining population growth, estimated to decrease to 17,8 million by 2030 (Eurostat, 2019). However, Romania also has a large diaspora, with an estimated 10 million Romanians residing in other countries (Melenciuc, 2019). According to the OECD report “Talent Abroad: A Review of Romanian Emigrants” (2019), the Romanian diaspora represented the fifth largest in the world in 2016. Among frequently cited causes for Romanians emigrating abroad is the high incidence of corruption in Romania (Intotero, as cited in Melenciuc, 2019).

Learning Corruption: Small-Scale Educational Corruption and Social Capital in Romania