Korapsen (Papua New Guinea) - Revision history

Editor2018 at 12:47, 17 May 2019

2019-05-17T12:47:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:47, 17 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Korapsen		\| nameofpractice =Korapsen
	\| location = Papua New Guinea		\| flagemoji =🇵🇬
	\| imagemap = ~~PapuaNewGuinea~~ map.png		\| definition =Euphemism for corruption in Papua New Guinea, but with distinctive local connotations
	\| ~~imageflag~~ = ~~PapuaNewGuinea flag.png~~		\| location =Papua New Guinea
	\| authorofpiece = Grant W. Walton		\| imagemap =Papua New Guinea map.png
	\| authorinstitution = Development Policy Centre, ~~Crawford School~~ of ~~Public~~ Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, ~~The Australian National University~~		\| clusters =
	}}		[[:Category:Redistribution\|Redistribution]] – [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence\| Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Sociability of instrumentality\| Sociability of instrumentality]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours\| Economies of favours]]
			\| categories =
			[[:Category:Papua New Guinea\|Papua New Guinea]] – [[:Category: Melanesia\| Melanesia]] – [[:Category: Oceania\| Oceania]] – [[:Category: Euphemism\| Euphemism]] – [[:Category: Favour\| Favour]]
			\| authorofpiece =Grant W. Walton
			\| authorinstitution =Development Policy Centre, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Australia
			\| authorwebsite =[https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/walton-gw Profile page at ANU]}}
			<big>'''By Grant W. Walton, Development Policy Centre, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Australia'''</big>
			[[Category:Redistribution]]
			[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]
			[[Category: Sociability of instrumentality]]
			[[Category: Economies of favours]]
			[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]
			[[Category: Melanesia]]
			[[Category: Oceania]]
			[[Category: Euphemism]]
			[[Category: Favour]]
			[[Category:Entry]]
			[[Category: Volume 1]]
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|-
			\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\|Those writing about Papua New Guinea (PNG) sometimes pass off the term ''korapsen'' as the local equivalent of the English word ‘corruption’, commonly understood as the ‘abuse of power (or public office) for private gain.’ For example, an article in the international magazine ''Time'' conflated the two words and it is assumed that, ‘[e]ven the humblest citizens know what korapsen is’<ref>Feizkah, E. 2002. 'Cult of Korapsen', ''Time World'', 22 April, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047250,00.html</ref>. What is ‘lost in translation’ here is the difference between the local knowledge, embodied in this distinctly Papua New Guinean word ''korapsen'', and the presumed connotations of the increasingly globalised term ‘corruption’. While these homonyms (corruption/''korapsen'') have some points of overlap, for Papua New Guineans, the local term ''korapsen'' has taken on a more informal meaning than its English counterpart.
			\|}

	~~'''''Original Text: Grant W. Walton, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University'''''~~

	~~<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">~~
	Those writing about Papua New Guinea (PNG) sometimes pass off the term ''korapsen'' as the local equivalent of the English word ‘corruption’, commonly understood as the ‘abuse of power (or public office) for private gain.’ For example, an article in the international magazine ''Time'' conflated the two words and it is assumed that, ‘[e]ven the humblest citizens know what korapsen is’<ref>Feizkah, E. 2002. 'Cult of Korapsen', ''Time World'', 22 April, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047250,00.html</ref>. What is ‘lost in translation’ here is the difference between the local knowledge, embodied in this distinctly Papua New Guinean word ''korapsen'', and the presumed connotations of the increasingly globalised term ‘corruption’. While these homonyms (corruption/''korapsen'') have some points of overlap, for Papua New Guineans, the local term ''korapsen'' has taken on a more informal meaning than its English counterpart.

	~~<div class="mw-collapsible-content">~~
	Officially, there is no equivalent for the word corruption in PNG’s lingua franca, Tok Pisin. The ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''<ref>Mihalic, F. 1983. ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''. Hong Kong: The Jacaranda Press</ref>, the most comprehensive guide on the language, does not include an entry on korapsen. Nor does the more recent ''Oxford Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary'' (Baing et al. 2008). In turn, translators have avoided using ''korapsen'' in literary works. The Tok Pisin version of the bible, the ''Buk Baibel'', does not appear to use the word. For instance, in the English bible, Isaiah 1:4 reads, ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption.’ This line is translated into: ‘''yupela ol manmeri i nogut tru na pasin bilong yu i nogut olgeta''’<ref>The Bible Society. 1993. ''Buk Baibel''. Port Moresby: The Bible Society Papua New Guinea. p.896..</ref>, where ''nogut olgeta'' (completely bad/useless/no good) fills in for the word corruption (John Burton 2009, pers. comm.). Thus, ''korapsen'' is quintessentially an informal word, which is most prevalent in its spoken form, rather than in written pidgin. Nevertheless, the term does sometimes appears in print – particularly at the growing number of anti-corruption events and in Tok Pisin news outlets, such as Radio Australia’s Tok Pisin news service and the local PNG paper the ''Wantok Niuspepa'' – where it is used to describe behaviour and organisations. As an example of the latter, Zimmermann highlights how the Wantok Niuspepa translates the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to ‘''Nesenel Fraud na Enti Korapsen skwat''’ (2010: 124).		Officially, there is no equivalent for the word corruption in PNG’s lingua franca, Tok Pisin. The ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''<ref>Mihalic, F. 1983. ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''. Hong Kong: The Jacaranda Press</ref>, the most comprehensive guide on the language, does not include an entry on korapsen. Nor does the more recent ''Oxford Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary'' (Baing et al. 2008). In turn, translators have avoided using ''korapsen'' in literary works. The Tok Pisin version of the bible, the ''Buk Baibel'', does not appear to use the word. For instance, in the English bible, Isaiah 1:4 reads, ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption.’ This line is translated into: ‘''yupela ol manmeri i nogut tru na pasin bilong yu i nogut olgeta''’<ref>The Bible Society. 1993. ''Buk Baibel''. Port Moresby: The Bible Society Papua New Guinea. p.896..</ref>, where ''nogut olgeta'' (completely bad/useless/no good) fills in for the word corruption (John Burton 2009, pers. comm.). Thus, ''korapsen'' is quintessentially an informal word, which is most prevalent in its spoken form, rather than in written pidgin. Nevertheless, the term does sometimes appears in print – particularly at the growing number of anti-corruption events and in Tok Pisin news outlets, such as Radio Australia’s Tok Pisin news service and the local PNG paper the ''Wantok Niuspepa'' – where it is used to describe behaviour and organisations. As an example of the latter, Zimmermann highlights how the Wantok Niuspepa translates the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to ‘''Nesenel Fraud na Enti Korapsen skwat''’ (2010: 124).

Line 27:		Line 42:

	There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.		There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.
	~~</div>~~
	~~</div>~~

	~~==Notes==~~
	~~<references />~~

	~~[[Category:Informal Practices]]~~		==References==
	~~[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]~~
	~~[[Category:Oceania]]~~
	~~[[Category:Substantive]]~~
	~~[[Category:Language of informality]]~~
	~~[[Category:Gift]]~~
	~~[[Category:Payment]]~~
	~~[[Category:Bribery]]~~
	~~[[Category:Entry]]~~

Admin at 15:27, 29 June 2018

2018-06-29T15:27:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 29 June 2018
Line 41:		Line 41:
	[[Category:Payment]]		[[Category:Payment]]
	[[Category:Bribery]]		[[Category:Bribery]]
			[[Category:Entry]]

Admin: Admin moved page Korapsen to Korapsen (Papua New Guinea) without leaving a redirect

2018-06-01T10:58:17Z

Admin moved page Korapsen to Korapsen (Papua New Guinea) without leaving a redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:58, 1 June 2018
(No difference)

Admin at 18:03, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T18:03:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 13 August 2016
Line 33:		Line 33:
	<references />		<references />

			[[Category:Informal Practices]]
	[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]		[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]
	[[Category:Oceania]]		[[Category:Oceania]]

Admin at 15:53, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T15:53:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 13 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = ~~Kombinacja~~		\| nameofpractice = Korapsen
	\| location = Papua New Guinea		\| location = Papua New Guinea
	\| imagemap = PapuaNewGuinea map.png		\| imagemap = PapuaNewGuinea map.png

Admin at 15:51, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T15:51:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 13 August 2016
Line 26:		Line 26:
	Institutional decay involves the deterioration of social and political institutions. Again, the focus groups conducted across PNG captured this interpretation. Some respondents said that ''korapsen'' occurs when the ''wantok'' (Tok Pisin for ‘one talk’) system – a social institution of reciprocity within kinship groups – benefits particular individuals more than the community as a whole. The ''wantok'' system has been criticised within PNG for causing corruption; particularly because its focus on maintaining kinship ties means citizens prefer distributing state resources to relatives rather than following state bureaucratic rules. But for some respondents, the ''wantok'' system was in decay, not because it challenged the rules of the state, but because it could create inequalities within the community, and thus was not living up to its ideal institutional function. In identifying the ''wantok'' system as a form of ''korapsen'' in this sense, respondents’ perceptions reflected the institutional side of the decay definition. Thus, while ''korapsen'' is a uniquely Papua New Guinean word, it resonates with other interpretations of its root word (‘corruption’) found in pre-modern Western thought.		Institutional decay involves the deterioration of social and political institutions. Again, the focus groups conducted across PNG captured this interpretation. Some respondents said that ''korapsen'' occurs when the ''wantok'' (Tok Pisin for ‘one talk’) system – a social institution of reciprocity within kinship groups – benefits particular individuals more than the community as a whole. The ''wantok'' system has been criticised within PNG for causing corruption; particularly because its focus on maintaining kinship ties means citizens prefer distributing state resources to relatives rather than following state bureaucratic rules. But for some respondents, the ''wantok'' system was in decay, not because it challenged the rules of the state, but because it could create inequalities within the community, and thus was not living up to its ideal institutional function. In identifying the ''wantok'' system as a form of ''korapsen'' in this sense, respondents’ perceptions reflected the institutional side of the decay definition. Thus, while ''korapsen'' is a uniquely Papua New Guinean word, it resonates with other interpretations of its root word (‘corruption’) found in pre-modern Western thought.

	There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref~~><br~~>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.		There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Admin at 15:51, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T15:51:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 13 August 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\| nameofpractice = Kombinacja		\| nameofpractice = Kombinacja
	\| location = Papua New Guinea		\| location = Papua New Guinea
	\| imagemap =		\| imagemap = PapuaNewGuinea map.png
	\| imageflag =		\| imageflag = PapuaNewGuinea flag.png
	\| authorofpiece = Grant W. Walton		\| authorofpiece = Grant W. Walton
	\| authorinstitution = Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University		\| authorinstitution = Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University

Admin at 15:44, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T15:44:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 13 August 2016
Line 27:		Line 27:

	There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.		There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.
			</div>
			</div>

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Admin at 15:44, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T15:44:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 13 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~<div class~~=~~'item'>'''''Original Text:~~ Grant W. Walton, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University'''''~~<br><br>Those writing about Papua New Guinea (PNG) sometimes pass off~~ the ~~term~~ ''~~korapsen~~'' ~~as the local equivalent of the English word ‘corruption’,~~ commonly understood as the ‘abuse of power (or public office) for private gain.’ For example, an article in the international magazine ''Time'' conflated the two words and it is assumed that, ‘[e]ven the humblest citizens know what korapsen is’<ref>Feizkah, E. 2002. 'Cult of Korapsen', ''Time World'', 22 April, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047250,00.html</ref>. What is ‘lost in translation’ here is the difference between the local knowledge, embodied in this distinctly Papua New Guinean word ''korapsen'', and the presumed connotations of the increasingly globalised term ‘corruption’. While these homonyms (corruption/''korapsen'') have some points of overlap, for Papua New Guineans, the local term ''korapsen'' has taken on a more informal meaning than its English counterpart.<br>Officially, there is no equivalent for the word corruption in PNG’s lingua franca, Tok Pisin. The ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''<ref>Mihalic, F. 1983. ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''. Hong Kong: The Jacaranda Press</ref>, the most comprehensive guide on the language, does not include an entry on korapsen. Nor does the more recent ''Oxford Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary'' (Baing et al. 2008). In turn, translators have avoided using ''korapsen'' in literary works. The Tok Pisin version of the bible, the ''Buk Baibel'', does not appear to use the word. For instance, in the English bible, Isaiah 1:4 reads, ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption.’ This line is translated into: ‘''yupela ol manmeri i nogut tru na pasin bilong yu i nogut olgeta''’<ref>The Bible Society. 1993. ''Buk Baibel''. Port Moresby: The Bible Society Papua New Guinea. p.896..</ref>, where ''nogut olgeta'' (completely bad/useless/no good) fills in for the word corruption (John Burton 2009, pers. comm.). Thus, ''korapsen'' is quintessentially an informal word, which is most prevalent in its spoken form, rather than in written pidgin. Nevertheless, the term does sometimes appears in print – particularly at the growing number of anti-corruption events and in Tok Pisin news outlets, such as Radio Australia’s Tok Pisin news service and the local PNG paper the ''Wantok Niuspepa'' – where it is used to describe behaviour and organisations. As an example of the latter, Zimmermann highlights how the Wantok Niuspepa translates the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to ‘''Nesenel Fraud na Enti Korapsen skwat''’ (2010: 124).~~<br>~~ In analysing results of a household survey conducted with over 1800 respondents, Walton <ref> Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref> (2015) has shown that many Papua New Guineans associate ''korapsen'' with ‘harmful activity’. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, respondents were less likely to equate it to ‘unacceptable’ behaviour. Respondents were presented with nine scenarios which depicted a range of different types and scales of possible corruption. They were asked to rate – on a scale of one to four – the degree to which each scenario was a form of ''korapsen'', harmful or unacceptable. They were more likely to rate scenarios as totally unacceptable, rather than harmful or as ''korapsen'' – with the latter two categories appearing highly correlated. This suggests that for many Papua New Guineans ''korapsen'' can be acceptable, even though they acknowledge that it causes harm.~~<br><br>~~The ambivalence that some Papua New Guineans hold towards ''korapsen'' became especially apparent in focus group discussions conducted around the country in 2008<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref~~><br~~>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref~~><br~~>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref>.~~<br>~~ While many respondents defined the term similarly to modern definitions of corruption (the abuse of power for private gain) others, rather courageously, spoke about the functionality of ''korapsen''. When discussing a scenario depicting a candidate bribing a citizen in return for their vote, many argued that such transactions were necessary due to cultural, social and economic pressures. For some, the candidate was not at fault as long as everyone in the community was given money; they believed that this scenario was unacceptable if money only went to a few. Voters themselves are thus actively engaged in such illicit transactions, often demanding that candidates and representatives distribute state largesse directly to the community rather than through the state.~~<br>~~This response needs to be understood in the context of PNG’s communally oriented culture<ref>Larmour, P. 2012. ''Interpreting Corruption: Culture and Politics in the Pacific Islands''. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press</ref>. The vast majority of land in PNG is communally held and cultural norms stress the importance of reciprocity for maintaining relationships. These values often trump the rules and laws of the state, particularly where the state is weak and ineffective<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Indeed, respondents in remote areas, particularly women who are often economically and politically marginalised and more engaged in the informal sector, suggested that they would accept money in exchange for their vote because it was one of the few times they benefitted from the state. This resulted in an ambivalence towards ''korapsen'', in that respondents had a sense that it was considered ‘wrong’, but the benefits it brought meant it was often supported.~~<br>~~ ''Korapsen'' is also tied to more informal activities that do not involve people in positions of power (an important prerequisite for modern definitions of corruption, see Walton 2015<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>). Results from the household survey showed that the scenario most aligned to ''korapsen'' involved a woman selling sex and drinking ‘homebrew’ (homemade alcohol). This suggests that ''korapsen'' in part reflects the ‘decay definition’ of corruption <ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>, which has its origins in ancient Greece. Indeed, the ancient Greeks defined corruption as both ''individual'' and ''institutional'' decay<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33 </ref><ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Individual decay includes ‘the corruption of the mind by which the ability to make sound judgments and pursue the good has been impaired’<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33, p.12. </ref>. The strong link between ''korapsen'', prostitution and homemade alcohol suggests the concept is thus strongly linked to individual decay in the minds of many Papua New Guineans.~~<br>~~Institutional decay involves the deterioration of social and political institutions. Again, the focus groups conducted across PNG captured this interpretation. Some respondents said that ''korapsen'' occurs when the ''wantok'' (Tok Pisin for ‘one talk’) system – a social institution of reciprocity within kinship groups – benefits particular individuals more than the community as a whole. The ''wantok'' system has been criticised within PNG for causing corruption; particularly because its focus on maintaining kinship ties means citizens prefer distributing state resources to relatives rather than following state bureaucratic rules. But for some respondents, the ''wantok'' system was in decay, not because it challenged the rules of the state, but because it could create inequalities within the community, and thus was not living up to its ideal institutional function. In identifying the ''wantok'' system as a form of ''korapsen'' in this sense, respondents’ perceptions reflected the institutional side of the decay definition. Thus, while ''korapsen'' is a uniquely Papua New Guinean word, it resonates with other interpretations of its root word (‘corruption’) found in pre-modern Western thought.~~<br>~~There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref~~><br~~>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref~~><br~~> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.~~<br><br>~~==Notes==~~<br>~~<references />~~<br>~~[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]~~<br>~~[[Category:Oceania]]~~<br>~~[[Category:Substantive]]~~<br>~~[[Category~~:Language of informality]]<br>[[Category:Gift]]<br>[[Category:Payment]]<br>~~[[Category:Bribery]]		{{infobox
	~~</div>~~		\| nameofpractice = Kombinacja
			\| location = Papua New Guinea
			\| imagemap =
			\| imageflag =
			\| authorofpiece = Grant W. Walton
			\| authorinstitution = Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University
			}}

			'''''Original Text: Grant W. Walton, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University'''''

			<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
			Those writing about Papua New Guinea (PNG) sometimes pass off the term ''korapsen'' as the local equivalent of the English word ‘corruption’, commonly understood as the ‘abuse of power (or public office) for private gain.’ For example, an article in the international magazine ''Time'' conflated the two words and it is assumed that, ‘[e]ven the humblest citizens know what korapsen is’<ref>Feizkah, E. 2002. 'Cult of Korapsen', ''Time World'', 22 April, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047250,00.html</ref>. What is ‘lost in translation’ here is the difference between the local knowledge, embodied in this distinctly Papua New Guinean word ''korapsen'', and the presumed connotations of the increasingly globalised term ‘corruption’. While these homonyms (corruption/''korapsen'') have some points of overlap, for Papua New Guineans, the local term ''korapsen'' has taken on a more informal meaning than its English counterpart.

			<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
			Officially, there is no equivalent for the word corruption in PNG’s lingua franca, Tok Pisin. The ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''<ref>Mihalic, F. 1983. ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''. Hong Kong: The Jacaranda Press</ref>, the most comprehensive guide on the language, does not include an entry on korapsen. Nor does the more recent ''Oxford Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary'' (Baing et al. 2008). In turn, translators have avoided using ''korapsen'' in literary works. The Tok Pisin version of the bible, the ''Buk Baibel'', does not appear to use the word. For instance, in the English bible, Isaiah 1:4 reads, ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption.’ This line is translated into: ‘''yupela ol manmeri i nogut tru na pasin bilong yu i nogut olgeta''’<ref>The Bible Society. 1993. ''Buk Baibel''. Port Moresby: The Bible Society Papua New Guinea. p.896..</ref>, where ''nogut olgeta'' (completely bad/useless/no good) fills in for the word corruption (John Burton 2009, pers. comm.). Thus, ''korapsen'' is quintessentially an informal word, which is most prevalent in its spoken form, rather than in written pidgin. Nevertheless, the term does sometimes appears in print – particularly at the growing number of anti-corruption events and in Tok Pisin news outlets, such as Radio Australia’s Tok Pisin news service and the local PNG paper the ''Wantok Niuspepa'' – where it is used to describe behaviour and organisations. As an example of the latter, Zimmermann highlights how the Wantok Niuspepa translates the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to ‘''Nesenel Fraud na Enti Korapsen skwat''’ (2010: 124).

			In analysing results of a household survey conducted with over 1800 respondents, Walton <ref> Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref> (2015) has shown that many Papua New Guineans associate ''korapsen'' with ‘harmful activity’. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, respondents were less likely to equate it to ‘unacceptable’ behaviour. Respondents were presented with nine scenarios which depicted a range of different types and scales of possible corruption. They were asked to rate – on a scale of one to four – the degree to which each scenario was a form of ''korapsen'', harmful or unacceptable. They were more likely to rate scenarios as totally unacceptable, rather than harmful or as ''korapsen'' – with the latter two categories appearing highly correlated. This suggests that for many Papua New Guineans ''korapsen'' can be acceptable, even though they acknowledge that it causes harm.

			The ambivalence that some Papua New Guineans hold towards ''korapsen'' became especially apparent in focus group discussions conducted around the country in 2008<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref>. While many respondents defined the term similarly to modern definitions of corruption (the abuse of power for private gain) others, rather courageously, spoke about the functionality of ''korapsen''. When discussing a scenario depicting a candidate bribing a citizen in return for their vote, many argued that such transactions were necessary due to cultural, social and economic pressures. For some, the candidate was not at fault as long as everyone in the community was given money; they believed that this scenario was unacceptable if money only went to a few. Voters themselves are thus actively engaged in such illicit transactions, often demanding that candidates and representatives distribute state largesse directly to the community rather than through the state.

			This response needs to be understood in the context of PNG’s communally oriented culture<ref>Larmour, P. 2012. ''Interpreting Corruption: Culture and Politics in the Pacific Islands''. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press</ref>. The vast majority of land in PNG is communally held and cultural norms stress the importance of reciprocity for maintaining relationships. These values often trump the rules and laws of the state, particularly where the state is weak and ineffective<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Indeed, respondents in remote areas, particularly women who are often economically and politically marginalised and more engaged in the informal sector, suggested that they would accept money in exchange for their vote because it was one of the few times they benefitted from the state. This resulted in an ambivalence towards ''korapsen'', in that respondents had a sense that it was considered ‘wrong’, but the benefits it brought meant it was often supported.

			''Korapsen'' is also tied to more informal activities that do not involve people in positions of power (an important prerequisite for modern definitions of corruption, see Walton 2015<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>). Results from the household survey showed that the scenario most aligned to ''korapsen'' involved a woman selling sex and drinking ‘homebrew’ (homemade alcohol). This suggests that ''korapsen'' in part reflects the ‘decay definition’ of corruption <ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>, which has its origins in ancient Greece. Indeed, the ancient Greeks defined corruption as both ''individual'' and ''institutional'' decay<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33 </ref><ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Individual decay includes ‘the corruption of the mind by which the ability to make sound judgments and pursue the good has been impaired’<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33, p.12. </ref>. The strong link between ''korapsen'', prostitution and homemade alcohol suggests the concept is thus strongly linked to individual decay in the minds of many Papua New Guineans.

			Institutional decay involves the deterioration of social and political institutions. Again, the focus groups conducted across PNG captured this interpretation. Some respondents said that ''korapsen'' occurs when the ''wantok'' (Tok Pisin for ‘one talk’) system – a social institution of reciprocity within kinship groups – benefits particular individuals more than the community as a whole. The ''wantok'' system has been criticised within PNG for causing corruption; particularly because its focus on maintaining kinship ties means citizens prefer distributing state resources to relatives rather than following state bureaucratic rules. But for some respondents, the ''wantok'' system was in decay, not because it challenged the rules of the state, but because it could create inequalities within the community, and thus was not living up to its ideal institutional function. In identifying the ''wantok'' system as a form of ''korapsen'' in this sense, respondents’ perceptions reflected the institutional side of the decay definition. Thus, while ''korapsen'' is a uniquely Papua New Guinean word, it resonates with other interpretations of its root word (‘corruption’) found in pre-modern Western thought.

			There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.

			==Notes==
			<references />

			[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]
			[[Category:Oceania]]
			[[Category:Substantive]]
			[[Category:Language of informality]]
			[[Category:Gift]]
			[[Category:Payment]]
			[[Category:Bribery]]

62.199.26.242 at 10:35, 19 July 2016

2016-07-19T10:35:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 19 July 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''''Original Text: Grant W. Walton, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University'''''		<div class='item'>'''''Original Text: Grant W. Walton, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University'''''<br><br>Those writing about Papua New Guinea (PNG) sometimes pass off the term ''korapsen'' as the local equivalent of the English word ‘corruption’, commonly understood as the ‘abuse of power (or public office) for private gain.’ For example, an article in the international magazine ''Time'' conflated the two words and it is assumed that, ‘[e]ven the humblest citizens know what korapsen is’<ref>Feizkah, E. 2002. 'Cult of Korapsen', ''Time World'', 22 April, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047250,00.html</ref>. What is ‘lost in translation’ here is the difference between the local knowledge, embodied in this distinctly Papua New Guinean word ''korapsen'', and the presumed connotations of the increasingly globalised term ‘corruption’. While these homonyms (corruption/''korapsen'') have some points of overlap, for Papua New Guineans, the local term ''korapsen'' has taken on a more informal meaning than its English counterpart.<br>Officially, there is no equivalent for the word corruption in PNG’s lingua franca, Tok Pisin. The ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''<ref>Mihalic, F. 1983. ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''. Hong Kong: The Jacaranda Press</ref>, the most comprehensive guide on the language, does not include an entry on korapsen. Nor does the more recent ''Oxford Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary'' (Baing et al. 2008). In turn, translators have avoided using ''korapsen'' in literary works. The Tok Pisin version of the bible, the ''Buk Baibel'', does not appear to use the word. For instance, in the English bible, Isaiah 1:4 reads, ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption.’ This line is translated into: ‘''yupela ol manmeri i nogut tru na pasin bilong yu i nogut olgeta''’<ref>The Bible Society. 1993. ''Buk Baibel''. Port Moresby: The Bible Society Papua New Guinea. p.896..</ref>, where ''nogut olgeta'' (completely bad/useless/no good) fills in for the word corruption (John Burton 2009, pers. comm.). Thus, ''korapsen'' is quintessentially an informal word, which is most prevalent in its spoken form, rather than in written pidgin. Nevertheless, the term does sometimes appears in print – particularly at the growing number of anti-corruption events and in Tok Pisin news outlets, such as Radio Australia’s Tok Pisin news service and the local PNG paper the ''Wantok Niuspepa'' – where it is used to describe behaviour and organisations. As an example of the latter, Zimmermann highlights how the Wantok Niuspepa translates the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to ‘''Nesenel Fraud na Enti Korapsen skwat''’ (2010: 124).<br> In analysing results of a household survey conducted with over 1800 respondents, Walton <ref> Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref> (2015) has shown that many Papua New Guineans associate ''korapsen'' with ‘harmful activity’. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, respondents were less likely to equate it to ‘unacceptable’ behaviour. Respondents were presented with nine scenarios which depicted a range of different types and scales of possible corruption. They were asked to rate – on a scale of one to four – the degree to which each scenario was a form of ''korapsen'', harmful or unacceptable. They were more likely to rate scenarios as totally unacceptable, rather than harmful or as ''korapsen'' – with the latter two categories appearing highly correlated. This suggests that for many Papua New Guineans ''korapsen'' can be acceptable, even though they acknowledge that it causes harm.<br><br>The ambivalence that some Papua New Guineans hold towards ''korapsen'' became especially apparent in focus group discussions conducted around the country in 2008<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref>.<br> While many respondents defined the term similarly to modern definitions of corruption (the abuse of power for private gain) others, rather courageously, spoke about the functionality of ''korapsen''. When discussing a scenario depicting a candidate bribing a citizen in return for their vote, many argued that such transactions were necessary due to cultural, social and economic pressures. For some, the candidate was not at fault as long as everyone in the community was given money; they believed that this scenario was unacceptable if money only went to a few. Voters themselves are thus actively engaged in such illicit transactions, often demanding that candidates and representatives distribute state largesse directly to the community rather than through the state.<br>This response needs to be understood in the context of PNG’s communally oriented culture<ref>Larmour, P. 2012. ''Interpreting Corruption: Culture and Politics in the Pacific Islands''. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press</ref>. The vast majority of land in PNG is communally held and cultural norms stress the importance of reciprocity for maintaining relationships. These values often trump the rules and laws of the state, particularly where the state is weak and ineffective<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Indeed, respondents in remote areas, particularly women who are often economically and politically marginalised and more engaged in the informal sector, suggested that they would accept money in exchange for their vote because it was one of the few times they benefitted from the state. This resulted in an ambivalence towards ''korapsen'', in that respondents had a sense that it was considered ‘wrong’, but the benefits it brought meant it was often supported.<br> ''Korapsen'' is also tied to more informal activities that do not involve people in positions of power (an important prerequisite for modern definitions of corruption, see Walton 2015<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>). Results from the household survey showed that the scenario most aligned to ''korapsen'' involved a woman selling sex and drinking ‘homebrew’ (homemade alcohol). This suggests that ''korapsen'' in part reflects the ‘decay definition’ of corruption <ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>, which has its origins in ancient Greece. Indeed, the ancient Greeks defined corruption as both ''individual'' and ''institutional'' decay<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33 </ref><ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Individual decay includes ‘the corruption of the mind by which the ability to make sound judgments and pursue the good has been impaired’<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33, p.12. </ref>. The strong link between ''korapsen'', prostitution and homemade alcohol suggests the concept is thus strongly linked to individual decay in the minds of many Papua New Guineans.<br>Institutional decay involves the deterioration of social and political institutions. Again, the focus groups conducted across PNG captured this interpretation. Some respondents said that ''korapsen'' occurs when the ''wantok'' (Tok Pisin for ‘one talk’) system – a social institution of reciprocity within kinship groups – benefits particular individuals more than the community as a whole. The ''wantok'' system has been criticised within PNG for causing corruption; particularly because its focus on maintaining kinship ties means citizens prefer distributing state resources to relatives rather than following state bureaucratic rules. But for some respondents, the ''wantok'' system was in decay, not because it challenged the rules of the state, but because it could create inequalities within the community, and thus was not living up to its ideal institutional function. In identifying the ''wantok'' system as a form of ''korapsen'' in this sense, respondents’ perceptions reflected the institutional side of the decay definition. Thus, while ''korapsen'' is a uniquely Papua New Guinean word, it resonates with other interpretations of its root word (‘corruption’) found in pre-modern Western thought.<br>There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref><br>Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.</ref><br> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.<br><br>==Notes==<br><references /><br>[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]<br>[[Category:Oceania]]<br>[[Category:Substantive]]<br>[[Category:Language of informality]]<br>[[Category:Gift]]<br>[[Category:Payment]]<br>[[Category:Bribery]]
			</div>
	Those writing about Papua New Guinea (PNG) sometimes pass off the term ''korapsen'' as the local equivalent of the English word ‘corruption’, commonly understood as the ‘abuse of power (or public office) for private gain.’ For example, an article in the international magazine ''Time'' conflated the two words and it is assumed that, ‘[e]ven the humblest citizens know what korapsen is’<ref>Feizkah, E. 2002. 'Cult of Korapsen', ''Time World'', 22 April, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047250,00.html</ref>. What is ‘lost in translation’ here is the difference between the local knowledge, embodied in this distinctly Papua New Guinean word ''korapsen'', and the presumed connotations of the increasingly globalised term ‘corruption’. While these homonyms (corruption/''korapsen'') have some points of overlap, for Papua New Guineans, the local term ''korapsen'' has taken on a more informal meaning than its English counterpart.

	Officially, there is no equivalent for the word corruption in PNG’s lingua franca, Tok Pisin. The ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''<ref>Mihalic, F. 1983. ''Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin''. Hong Kong: The Jacaranda Press</ref>, the most comprehensive guide on the language, does not include an entry on korapsen. Nor does the more recent ''Oxford Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary'' (Baing et al. 2008). In turn, translators have avoided using ''korapsen'' in literary works. The Tok Pisin version of the bible, the ''Buk Baibel'', does not appear to use the word. For instance, in the English bible, Isaiah 1:4 reads, ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption.’ This line is translated into: ‘''yupela ol manmeri i nogut tru na pasin bilong yu i nogut olgeta''’<ref>The Bible Society. 1993. ''Buk Baibel''. Port Moresby: The Bible Society Papua New Guinea. p.896..</ref>, where ''nogut olgeta'' (completely bad/useless/no good) fills in for the word corruption (John Burton 2009, pers. comm.). Thus, ''korapsen'' is quintessentially an informal word, which is most prevalent in its spoken form, rather than in written pidgin. Nevertheless, the term does sometimes appears in print – particularly at the growing number of anti-corruption events and in Tok Pisin news outlets, such as Radio Australia’s Tok Pisin news service and the local PNG paper the ''Wantok Niuspepa'' – where it is used to describe behaviour and organisations. As an example of the latter, Zimmermann highlights how the Wantok Niuspepa translates the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to ‘''Nesenel Fraud na Enti Korapsen skwat''’ (2010: 124).

	In analysing results of a household survey conducted with over 1800 respondents, Walton <ref> Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref> (2015) has shown that many Papua New Guineans associate ''korapsen'' with ‘harmful activity’. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, respondents were less likely to equate it to ‘unacceptable’ behaviour. Respondents were presented with nine scenarios which depicted a range of different types and scales of possible corruption. They were asked to rate – on a scale of one to four – the degree to which each scenario was a form of ''korapsen'', harmful or unacceptable. They were more likely to rate scenarios as totally unacceptable, rather than harmful or as ''korapsen'' – with the latter two categories appearing highly correlated. This suggests that for many Papua New Guineans ''korapsen'' can be acceptable, even though they acknowledge that it causes harm.

	The ambivalence that some Papua New Guineans hold towards ''korapsen'' became especially apparent in focus group discussions conducted around the country in 2008<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref>

	Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>

	Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.
	</ref>. While many respondents defined the term similarly to modern definitions of corruption (the abuse of power for private gain) others, rather courageously, spoke about the functionality of ''korapsen''. When discussing a scenario depicting a candidate bribing a citizen in return for their vote, many argued that such transactions were necessary due to cultural, social and economic pressures. For some, the candidate was not at fault as long as everyone in the community was given money; they believed that this scenario was unacceptable if money only went to a few. Voters themselves are thus actively engaged in such illicit transactions, often demanding that candidates and representatives distribute state largesse directly to the community rather than through the state.

	This response needs to be understood in the context of PNG’s communally oriented culture<ref>Larmour, P. 2012. ''Interpreting Corruption: Culture and Politics in the Pacific Islands''. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press</ref>. The vast majority of land in PNG is communally held and cultural norms stress the importance of reciprocity for maintaining relationships. These values often trump the rules and laws of the state, particularly where the state is weak and ineffective<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Indeed, respondents in remote areas, particularly women who are often economically and politically marginalised and more engaged in the informal sector, suggested that they would accept money in exchange for their vote because it was one of the few times they benefitted from the state. This resulted in an ambivalence towards ''korapsen'', in that respondents had a sense that it was considered ‘wrong’, but the benefits it brought meant it was often supported.

	''Korapsen'' is also tied to more informal activities that do not involve people in positions of power (an important prerequisite for modern definitions of corruption, see Walton 2015<ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>). Results from the household survey showed that the scenario most aligned to ''korapsen'' involved a woman selling sex and drinking ‘homebrew’ (homemade alcohol). This suggests that ''korapsen'' in part reflects the ‘decay definition’ of corruption <ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>, which has its origins in ancient Greece. Indeed, the ancient Greeks defined corruption as both ''individual'' and ''institutional'' decay<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33 </ref><ref>Walton, G. W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31. </ref>. Individual decay includes ‘the corruption of the mind by which the ability to make sound judgments and pursue the good has been impaired’<ref>Bratsis, P. 2003. 'The Construction of Corruption, or Rules of Separation and Illusions of Purity in Bourgeois Societies', ''Social Text'' 77, 21(4): 9-33, p.12. </ref>. The strong link between ''korapsen'', prostitution and homemade alcohol suggests the concept is thus strongly linked to individual decay in the minds of many Papua New Guineans.

	Institutional decay involves the deterioration of social and political institutions. Again, the focus groups conducted across PNG captured this interpretation. Some respondents said that ''korapsen'' occurs when the ''wantok'' (Tok Pisin for ‘one talk’) system – a social institution of reciprocity within kinship groups – benefits particular individuals more than the community as a whole. The ''wantok'' system has been criticised within PNG for causing corruption; particularly because its focus on maintaining kinship ties means citizens prefer distributing state resources to relatives rather than following state bureaucratic rules. But for some respondents, the ''wantok'' system was in decay, not because it challenged the rules of the state, but because it could create inequalities within the community, and thus was not living up to its ideal institutional function. In identifying the ''wantok'' system as a form of ''korapsen'' in this sense, respondents’ perceptions reflected the institutional side of the decay definition. Thus, while ''korapsen'' is a uniquely Papua New Guinean word, it resonates with other interpretations of its root word (‘corruption’) found in pre-modern Western thought.

	There might be reservations about seeking to understand ''korapsen'' through its vernacular meaning. As homonyms, ‘corruption’ and ''korapsen'' are indeed difficult to distinguish. Even speakers of Tok Pisin would find it difficult to articulate whether they were referring to the English or Tok Pisin meaning; and the research<ref>Walton, G. W. 2009. ''Rural Peoples' Perceptions of Corruption in Papua New Guinea''. Port Moresby: Transparency International Papua New Guinea</ref><ref>

	Walton, G.W. 2013. 'Is All Corruption Dysfunctional? Perceptions of Corruption and Its Consequences in Papua New Guinea', ''Public Administration and Development'', 33(3):175-190</ref><ref>

	Walton, G.W. 2015. 'Defining Corruption Where the State Is Weak: The Case of Papua New Guinea', ''Journal of Development Studies'', 51(1): 15-31.
	</ref> did not try to distinguish the two. However, if one is sensitive to the meaning of ''korapsen'' shared by local communities – whereby the definition of the concept is determined by the views of Papua New Guineans – is it easy to see that ''korapsen'' and ‘corruption’ are related but distinct concepts. The latter focuses on wrongdoing by those in positions of power, where ‘wrongdoing’ is determined by the rules and laws of the state. In a distinctly Papua New Guinean sense, ''korapsen'' is associated with informal practices necessary for the daily workings of the community and reflecting Papua New Guinea’s social, cultural and economic conditions.

	==Notes==
	<references />
	[[Category:Papua New Guinea]]
	[[Category:Oceania]]