International indices suggest that corruption in PNG is acute, with Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index ranking the country as one of the more corrupt in the world.

In 2021, PNG scored 31 out of 100 (with zero being highly corrupt and 100 very clean) and was ranked as the 124th most corrupt country out of 180 countries.

However, it is important to note that the index has a number of limitations.

In particular, CPI scores are based on assessments from international experts who may not live in the country, focus on the public sector (ignoring the private sector) and only apply to the national scale (thus overlooking transnational corruption).

While there is much discussion about corruption in PNG, it is important to note that the concept itself is contested.

Scholars have long argued about how to define corruption and who should define it. On the one hand, there are those who tend to see corruption as a universal concept, which has been a feature of life and governance in all countries throughout history.

Many believe corruption can be effectively measured and define corruption as ‘the abuse of public office for private gain’, which means corruption is confined to state officials.

This perspective is popular among international scholars (particularly economists and political scientists), international donors and some NGOs (such as Transparency International).

Given its popularity, we can refer to this position as the ‘mainstream view’ of corruption.

On the other hand, other scholars believe that corruption is a social construct and that interpretations of this concept vary depending on social, political, cultural and economic factors.

Some of these scholars note that what is considered corrupt in one country or community is often not in another and argue that interpreting ‘corruption’ requires understanding the contextual factors that shape people’s lives and decisions.

While increasingly popular (particularly among anthropologists and human geographers), these views are still on the margins of debates about corruption, so we can refer to this position as the ‘alternative view’ of corruption.

Over the past decade in PNG, researchers have sought to comprehend how Papua New Guineans interpret corruption and how these understandings differ or overlap with international definitions.

Findings reveal that many Papua New Guineans do indeed reflect the mainstream view of corruption.

A survey of over 1,800 people across nine provinces of the country found that 53% of respondents defined corruption as ‘the abuse of public office for private gain’.

However, reflecting the alternative view, marginalised respondents were less likely to define corruption in this way.

Rather, women, the poor and rural respondents defined corruption more broadly, focusing on local concerns and activities that did not involve public officials.

Some in PNG justify corruption because of poverty and cultural obligations. What do these findings tell us about corruption in PNG? Well, for a start, we need to be careful when assessing the nature of corruption in PNG.

While international indices might suggest corruption is a major problem in the country, they fail to account for the lived experiences and perceptions of Papua New Guinean citizens.

Taking these into account shows that, for some, particularly the marginalised, what some call ‘corruption’ is simply a way of responding to economic and cultural constraints.

This is not to say that we should tolerate all forms of corruption. Indeed, it is difficult to justify grand corruption involving millions of kina.

However, when examining corruption in PNG we need to take into account social, economic, cultural and geographical factors that might explain why some might support activities that others label ‘corrupt’.

Keeping the above discussion in mind, it is worthwhile examining the drivers and manifestations of corruption – as the mainstream view interprets it – in PNG.

In the lead up to independence, the 1974 Constitutional Planning Committee’s report identified corruption as a key risk to this new nation and recommended the establishment of a Leadership Code and Ombudsman Commission.

Despite the concerns expressed by some of PNG’s elites about these institutions – for example, Julius Chan argued against the establishment of the Ombudsman Commission and leadership code – both were adopted, in modified form, into the nation’s constitution.

When assessing the nature of corruption in the post-independence era, scholars and officials have identified two distinct time periods.

The first epoch centres on the early years of independence until the early 1980s. While the newly independent country faced numerous challenges, until the early 1980s its public administration was robust and corruption was mostly kept under control.

This period saw smooth changes of government in 1980, 1982 and 1985, and senior public administrators described public servants of this era as motivated, independent and professional.

However, by the mid-1980s service delivery had noticeably declined and by the 1990s, as May noted, corruption and nepotism had become particularly apparent.

In their influential report of 1984, Clifford et al observed numerous examples of potential corruption and warned that the extent of the problem was likely greater than available data suggested.

Since this time, there have been numerous corruption scandals involving public servants, politicians, private companies, landowner groups, citizens and non-citizens.

Examples of 1980s corruption scandals include those in the logging industry forensically investigated in the 1989 Barnett Commission of Inquiry.

In 1997, concern about corruption increased after the government’s failed attempt to hire foreign mercenaries to fight in its long-running war in Bougainville.

This event was beset by accusations of backroom deals and became known as the ‘Sandline Affair’ (after Sandline International, the name of the company that provided the mercenaries), which ultimately caused the downfall of the then prime minister, Sir Julius Chan.

Corruption scandals, often involving senior public servants and politicians, continue to feature in national media and in online forums.

For example, in 2020, former prime minister Peter O’Neill was arrested in relation to the purchase of generators; he was later acquitted in the National Court. This followed a failed attempt in 2014 to arrest the then prime minister over a government payment to a local law firm.

While corruption scandals involving senior officials and, often, millions of kina, can be hard to keep track of, Transparency International PNG endeavoured to describe the nature of these allegations in their report, ‘Lest We Forget’.

It reviewed 20 unresolved large-scale corruption allegations between 2007 and 2017, and showed how state investments and lease arrangements have contributed to potential corruption.

In turn, over the past two decades, PNG businesses have consistently cited corruption as a key constraint to business in the country.

Research with citizens and public servants also suggests that corruption is a part of many people’s lives.

A survey of citizens in five provinces found that 51% of respondents had witnessed some sort of corruption, with males more likely to witness corruption than females.

Most respondents (73%) were concerned about bribery, particularly during elections.

Respondents believed nepotism was most prevalent in tendering boards, while misappropriation (or theft of government property) was most associated with the health sector.

Many public servants also believe corruption is common, with research conducted in 2018 showing that two-thirds of public servants across four provinces agreed that it is difficult to get things done without bribing government officials.

It is difficult to know whether corruption in PNG is getting worse. As discussed in ‘Law, order, crime & moral panic in PNG’, corruption is a contested concept making measurement difficult; in addition, it is often conducted in secret and hidden from indicators that attempt to quantify it.

For some, corruption is an outcome of the merging of traditional systems of governance with PNG’s weak state.

For example, the bigman politics that led to client–patron relations reflect the reciprocal exchanges of wealth embodied in the practice of moka by the Melpa people of Mount Hagen.

From this perspective, corruption is part of a longer tradition of reciprocity. Clifford et al argued that corruption is particularly possible in PNG due to wantok obligations of reciprocal gift exchange and ‘a cultural lack of familiarity with written records’.

Still, it is important to note that much of what is called ‘grand (large-scale) corruption’ involves a network of transnational elites and organisations.

This is particularly the case in the logging sector, with transnational companies (especially those from Southeast Asia) long associated with corruption and human rights abuses.

Transnational networks across the region can help facilitate the laundering of illicitly gained funds into offshore bank accounts and real estate.

In 2015, an investigation by the NGO Global Witness and Australian media outlets showed how PNG politicians were investing corrupt monies into Australian banks and real estate.

For its role in harbouring corrupt funds, Sam Koim, head of the now defunct anti-corruption organisation Investigation Taskforce Sweep, described Australia as the ‘Cayman Islands of the Pacific’.

Focusing on its transnational elements shows that corruption is not simply associated with state officials – it also involves a network of organisations and individuals from the private sector that move illicitly gained goods and monies throughout the world.

The poor state of PNG’s integrity agencies is another key driver of corruption, which is much more likely if people think they can get away with it.

Their effectiveness in addressing corruption is undermined by two other factors. First, most anti-corruption organisations are mandated to focus on public officials rather than the private sector or civil society – two sectors that play a significant role in delivering services across the country.

Second, with some exceptions, most anti-corruption organisations fail to focus on transnational corruption. Like state-based anti-corruption organisations in other jurisdictions, these organisations struggle to investigate and hold to account the transnational web of actors involved in corruption.

Crime and corruption present key challenges for PNG as they can undermine economic activity, social harmony and state stability.

Both issues are regularly cited as key challenges for business in particular – indeed, a 2012 survey of businesses in PNG found that law and order and corruption were the top two reform priorities.

Responding to these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of the social, cultural and economic forces that allow these problems to flourish.

Thinking about crime and corruption requires recognising the networks and relationships between a variety of individuals and organisations. Networks of politicians, bureaucrats and businesspeople often perpetuate crime and corruption.

Global, regional, national and local events, as well as innovation and technological change, will continue to reshape the threat of crime and corruption in the years to come.

Law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies need to adapt to these changes if they are to effectively address crime and corruption, especially as efforts to date have been wholly inadequate.