THE CLARITY OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION AS A RESOURCE TO THE SPREAD OF IMITATIVE CORRUPT PRACTICES OF INTERACTION BETWEEN CITIZENS, BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Abstract

In Russian society, a dissonance between the declared values of condemning corruption and tolerating it in addressing life situations is typical, manifested in behavioral practices. This article examines the behavioral imitative corrupt practices among citizens and the business community when faced with complex and unclear rules when interacting with government agencies: people are prone to imitate corrupt behavior when they observe it in their immediate environment. The central question of this study is what causes the spread of imitative corrupt practices and the shortcomings of government regulation that provide the basis for such practices. In examining this issue, the authors focus on the clarity of regulatory rules and procedures, exploring the phenomenon of clarity from the perspective of an activity-based approach. This approach interprets clarity not as the ability to reproduce acquired information (knowledge), but as the clarity of the requirements contained in rules and procedures – a clarity that can ensure actions that exclude corrupt behavior (compliance with behavioral requirements, the transition from knowledge to competences). In a situation where corrupt behavior is perceived in the public consciousness as an inevitable, forced "defense" against the complexity and ambiguity of government rules and procedures, can improving the clarity of government regulation minimize the risks of "contagion" by corruption (the reproduction of corrupt behavior)?

The search for recipes for minimizing the behavioral risks of "corruption infection" in the literature is associated primarily with the simplification of administrative rules and procedures, openness, and transparency of public administration. However, simplicity, openness, and transparency do not necessarily mean that rules and procedures are understandable to clients. The study analyzes the factor of clarity of government regulation as a resource for reducing the risks of the spread of imitative corrupt practices among citizens and businesses when interacting with government agencies. Using the results of a questionnaire survey conducted between 2023 and 2025 among citizens (n = 600 annually) and the business community (n = 400 annually), the authors diagnose: a) the presence of established imitative corrupt practices in both groups of respondents; b) the problem of the business community's distrust in constructive dialogue with the authorities; the persistence of the attitude that the authorities are more likely to punish than to explain and help; c) a demand for increased clarity of government regulation.

This article presents social practices for ensuring the clarity of government regulation across three entities: government agencies; state bodies (Business Ombudsmen); and non-governmental non-profit organizations (Unions of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry). Examples of practices that enhance the clarity of government regulation in everyday communications between business and government are described.

The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of integrating proposed social practices to ensure the clarity of state regulation into the overall systemic work on the prevention of corrupt behavior.