As any generic “introduction to politics” text will outline, it is ultimately about “who gets what, when and how” (Lasswell 1936). In this sense, those engaged in political corruption will – by either accident or design – ensure that the answers to these questions are not decided altogether equitably. Therefore, “what makes political corruption an evil is that it undercuts the ability of politics to provide such a solution” to this basic formula (Philp 1997: 456; for a more detailed unpicking of this see Philp & Dávid-Barrett 2015).

Conflicts of interest: cronyism, patronage and nepotism

Concepts such as cronyism, patronage and nepotism (as well as broader issues such as clientelism) are often considered to be classic forms of political corruption and we will take them in turn below. The generally accepted definition of cronyism is laid out by Khatri and Tsang (2003: 289) and encompasses the “granting of economic favors to friends and privileged associates”. They outline that cronyism as both a concept and a practice ought to be understood as occurring on two levels: the horizontal and the vertical.

At the horizontal level, cronyism is situated amongst peer networks and is reflected well in a more general understanding of elite theory. That policy tends to be more responsive to those from specific wealthy constituencies (Gilens 2012; Gilens & Page 2014) and, more generally, ties at the intersection of business and politics reflect shared experiences born out of elite schools, universities and members’ clubs (Bond 2007).

Concerns surrounding horizontal-level cronyism were well represented around emergency procurement measures during the coronavirus pandemic. In the UK alone contracts in excess of £1.5 billion were dished out to companies connected to the Conservative party (Hill 2020).1 Such was the furore around this that the term cronyism almost disappeared from the debate altogether, as did corruption. Governance in the UK, it seemed, was better summed up by a different, altogether more British c-word, “chumocracy”, in which “ministers just pick up the phone and fill important jobs with their chums” (Clark 2020). Which, in terms of a neat one-line summary of cronyism, does as good a job as any academic reflection might manage.

However, the term chum speaks to a relationship that, at least superficially, occurs on a level playing field. Vertical-level cronyism on the other hand is hierarchical and represents a kind of corruption born of unequal relationships.