The paper is devoted to instrumental conceptualization of corruption, including classification of its forms and definition of the institutional mechanism. It proposes an analysis of conceptual approaches to corruption and demonstrates that the major aspects of normative approach are as follows: value judgment of corruption as an unambiguously negative phenomenon; associating corruption with contempt of the law or violation of moral and ethical standards; consideration of corruption as a deviant behavior. The author emphasizes challenging issues and ambiguity of this approach. The rationalist approach to corruption, including the economic approach, does not address value judgments or various norms and standards, but describes it in terms of functional assessment of its symptoms and consequences. The paper counters the claim that corruption fulfils some positive functions such as the function of deregulation and overcoming bureaucratic barriers. The paper reveals a generalized mechanism of corruption: exceeding authority and violating the official powers and duties regulations, including code of conduct and ethical standards, and (or) social behavioral, moral, and ethical norms, an official of an administrative organization illegitimately distributes and uses resources of the organization to gain personal or group benefits, not to implement the functions and objectives of the organization. The author proposes a new definition of the term “political corruption” and describes an hierarchy system of types of political and economic corruption, where the “state capture” is at the top. The author also determinates the institutional mechanism of corruption in the sphere of public power, the essence of which lies in the various types of abuse of its resources. While conceptualizing corruption in public policy in an instrumental way, it is defined as an abuse, misuse of public power resources by a public official not for implementing functions of the state or providing social progress, but for obtaining undue preferences or deriving tangible or intangible personal or group benefits, including gaining advantages in favor of third parties.
The article analyzes blogs as a source of collectively generated opinions. The aim is to find out responsibility ascriptions by lay people in case of terrorist attack by studying blogs. Content analysis of blog posts generated in four-day period after Domodedovo airport (Russia) terrorist attack in January 2011 was conducted. Responsibility for the attack is obviously ascribed mainly to institutional (power structures), rather than to individual terrorist or collective (religious fundamentalists) actors. Blogs do not replace traditional media still playing significant role for blogs themselves as a source of factual judgment-free information. Theoretical significance of results obtained amounts to the fact that in a considerable number of cases the actor is accused without specifying his action of commission or omission. Besides, distinction between types of involvement is very important: bloggers blame actors more often for omission than for commission.