The foregoing review of major definitions of corruption proves the difficulty of defining corruption. M. Halayya is right when he comments that "everyone knows what corruption is; but it is difficult to define it in exact terms." However, the problem is not that some serious controversies stand in the way of compromise among corruption analysts, but that different analysts have directed attention to different lines of inquiry. I know all details about 24 hours paper as students get suggestions with writing essays. As a result, the choice of definition simply reflects their different foci and purposes. Different perspectives and priorities ensure analytical diversity and reduce the possibility of consensus. Despite the dispiriting complaint that "the search for the true definition of corruption is endless, exhausting and ultimately futile" and the proper warning that "corruption, like obscenity or beauty, could exist only in the eyes of the beholder", it is still necessary and worthwhile to pursue a serviceable definition. Such a working definition, as I call it, suggests that the definition of corruption should reflect the question the analyst poses. It is not supposed to be a global definition, broad enough to include all informalities, yet precise enough to analyze each individual case. A "working definition" only reflects the direction in which the analyst wishes to go. Two general features stand out for the working definition of this study: one is its clear locus and the other its special context.

Bookmark: