Various scholars, anti-corruption researchers and international organisations define corruption in many ways. Transparency International (TI), a non-governmental anti-corruption organisation, defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. In its Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems, the TI described private gain as financial or material and non-material gain, such as political or professional ambitions. According to the World Bank, corruption is the abuse of public office for private gain. It covers a wide range of behaviour, from bribery to theft of public funds. The Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC) described corruption as the abuse of public position for personal benefit or the benefit of an individual or group to whom one owes allegiance.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted authority for private gain. According to its Anticorruption Strategy, corruption involves not just the misuse of public office but also other offices. The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) refers to corruption as the abuse of trust, power or position for inappropriate gain. Corruption includes, among other things, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, conflict of interest and nepotism etc. In its corporate policy paper, Fighting Corruption to Improve Governance, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defined corruption as misusing public power, office or authority for personal benefit. While corruption is often considered immoral for public servants, it also predominates in the private sector. Moreover, the European Union (EU), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the U4 Anti-Corruption Research Institute offer definitions of corruption as the misuse of public or private office for private gain.

Although we have observed several institutionalised and operational definitions of corruption, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) states that there is no single, comprehensive and universally accepted definition. It is challenging to formulate such a universal definition due to legal, criminological and socio-political problems. Likewise, the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and the Global Infrastructure Anti-Corruption Centre (GIACC) suggest that no precise definition exists that provides all forms, types, and degrees of corruption or would be accepted internationally.

Interestingly, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), a legally binding multilateral treaty with 140 signatories and 188 States Parties, does not define corruption. Like UNCAC, several regional anti-corruption instruments, e.g. the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, the Arab Anti-Corruption Convention, and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention do not prescribe a single definition of corruption. Instead, these conventionslist and describe a series of corrupt acts, e.g. bribery, embezzlement, money laundering, extortion, illicit enrichment, concealment of property and obstruction of justice, that the states parties should criminalise within their jurisdictions.

Many academics and researchers, including Alina Mungiu-Pippidi and Mihály Fazekas, argued that measuring corruption is vital for policy-driven intellectual effort. Nevertheless, there can never be a single definition of corruption, so measuring it in different sectors mostly depends on the interest embedded in the measurement to satisfy the essential elements of a definition. They also claimed that each definition should suit its specific governance contexts, such as democracy or autocracy. Graham Brooks and David Walsh suggested that due to various forms and functions in diverse contexts, providing an unequivocal definition of corruption remains elusive and challenging for anti-corruption activists, policymakers and law enforcement agencies. According to Giulia Mugellini, the concept of corruption is broad, and there is no consensus on a standard and exhaustive definition. The complexity of corruption cannot be understood through a unidimensional definition but with a multidisciplinary approach. This is true when discussing corruption's conceptualisation and definition, specially when dealing with its measurement and policing.

While trying to understand the main features of the definitions described earlier, we found that most of them contain western notions, leading to arguments for their applicability and effectiveness in non-western societies and less-developed states. Some definitions are narrow, whereas some are broad, intricate to comprehend and apply equally in all societies. Besides, the nature and practice of corruption are also constantly shifting. Culture, tradition, societal structure, socio-legal environment, and political governance play a significant role in advancing and combating corruption in a country. Anti-corruption institutions and campaigners preferably choose a definition that fits their operational or policy purpose. However, definitions are essential, no matter the aim. Hence, we think it is fair to have a unique and conclusive definition of corruption; the question is, who will endorse the definition, and how will it be universally accepted?

THE WRITER IS A SOCIO-LEGAL ANALYST.