Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues (Print ISSN: 1544-0036; Online ISSN: 1544-0044)

Original Articles: 2017 Vol: 20 Issue: 1

Features of Corruption in the Educational Sphere in the Context of Globalization of Educational Space

Ruslan A Abramov, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

 Maxim S Sokolov, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics


According to article 69 of the Law "On education in Russian Federation" dated 29 December 2012 No_273-FZ, the higher education aims at training highly skilled personnel for all basic directions of socially useful activity in accordance with the needs of society and the state, the needs of the individual in intellectual, cultural and moral development, deepening and expansion of education, scientific-pedagogical qualifications. Therefore, one of the most dangerous manifestation of corruption is the corruption in the institutions of higher education, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of the law, deprives our society of highly qualified specialists that are needed to meet the needs of companies in different spheres and therefore the normal development of the state. Provides young people a distorted idea about how to achieve your goal and-recognition of the authority of the law. All this leads to cultural and moral degradation of the society as a whole. Leaving no chance for its sustainable and harmonious development. The fact that corruption has penetrated into many social spheres, including in higher education-this is not news. Society at the legislative level struggling with it for many years, however, the problem currently remains. This fact was confirmed by information periodically appearing in the Russian media, on the initiation of criminal proceedings for corruption offenses in the system of higher education. The fact that corruption in the Russian institutions of higher professional education has undermined its prestige, many important. But still, the main problem is not the attractiveness of the University of the Russian Federation for Russian and foreign students and it is not his place on the world pedestal of higher education. Most important in this case is the person, the citizen, the student, finally. His attitude to corruption, it’s against the law. He understands that normal and what is not. Corruption in education takes many forms, but still want to stay in this manifestation of it, as a bribe, any unlawful use of official powers or capabilities of the authority of official status in the admissions process, learning outcome assessments related to the statement of achievement established by the state educational levels, as well as when translating into a different form of training in educational institutions of higher professional education. It is in this form, corruption that directly involved the student, in contrast to such forms as, for example, misappropriation of budgetary funds. In this case, the crime has already formed personality. In this work I want it to reflect the relationship "teacher-student", as it is at this stage the identity of the young citizens. After "the high school of corruption," the student brings the experience of a criminal relationship and its future "adult" life, believes corruption is a norm of behavior, building a corrupt states.


Education, Corruption, Importance, Formation, Regulation, Rationing, Crime.


According to article 1. The Federal law from December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ "On combating corruption", corruption this abuse of official position, bribery, receiving a bribe, abuse of authority, commercial bribery or other illegal use by a physical person of his official position contrary to legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of property character, other property rights for itself or for third parties or illegal provision of such benefits specified person other individuals, as well perform the above actions on behalf or in the interests of a legal entity.

In international law General and comprehensive definition of corruption was missing. In the practice has spread such a definition of corruption: "Corruption is the behavior of officials in the public sector as politicians and civil servants, in which they or their loved ones wrongfully and illegally enrich them by abusing entrusted to them by the state authority." This definition does not cover the issue of corruption in the private sector or the role of the private sector in the development of corruption in the public sector; therefore some organizations use brief definition of corruption is "the abuse of power in the public or private sector for private gain".

And so after analyzing the above definition it becomes clear that in order to give the concept of corruption in institutions of higher education, we first need to identify the forms of its manifestation in the institutions of higher education.

And so, the main forms of corruption in education, including higher, include:

• Inappropriate use of budgetary funds.

• Bribes in the accreditation of educational institutions.

• Illegal obtaining of evidence and documents on education.

• Unauthorized admission to the school without taking into account the results of the competition.

• Soliciting teachers during the sessions (excessive demands in the exams and tests and offer to drop them altogether or to put evaluation just for "reward").

• Pressure students who do not wish to teach the subject, teachers (imposing bribes).

• Pressure on teachers from peers or management to force them to put passing scores on the examinations and tests to specific students or groups of students.

According to the study those relationships in which the UNIVERSITY acts as a business entity, the object of control, in this case not of interest. As these relations are directly attributable to higher professional education. Nevertheless, the overall idea of such a manifestation of corruption should be.

The authors would like to pay attention to those relationships in which, on the one hand the party supports the student (applicant) or his legal representatives and on the other hand the teacher or other persons authorized to take in respect of the student (the applicant) legally significant decisions.

Literature Review

In the Russian criminally-legal and criminological science on the concept of corruption refers to the number of discussion. The main difference is the amount of interpretations of the term "corruption".

Proponents of a narrow interpretation defines corruption as the bribery and venality of the authorities. So, Cheloukhine & Haberfeld and corruption understand "social phenomenon, characterized by bribery and corruption of state and other officials and based on this, the selfish use of their personal or narrow group, the corporate interests of official powers associated with the authority and capability" (Cheloukhine & Haberfeld, 2011). The similar is the position V.N. Brovkin (2003). In her view, corruption is "socially negative phenomenon, as expressed in the bribery of one person for others". Criticizing a broader view on corruption, S.I. Cohen notes: to Call corruption the whole system of acquisitive offences such as abuse of power, abuse of power, forgery, is not only inappropriate, but also nesoglasie with the principle of differentiation of guilt, responsibility and punishment differentiation. Criminal law is very complicated legislative regulation of economic and official crimes would make confusion in the definition of offences and their punishment (Cohen, 2009).

Supporters of a broad understanding of corruption focuses not so much on the criminal deal between the public employee and the individual, as on any selfish behavior of officials. According to Beets, corruption involves "the expansion of the administrative apparatus based on the use of officials of his official position in the mercenary purposes" (Beets, 2005). Osipian believes that corruption is "the use of the subject of management of its powers contrary to interests of service of personal interest" (Osipian, 2015). According to Wilhelm, corruption is the use of state, municipal or other public servants (including MPs and judges) or by the employees of commercial or other organizations (including international) of its status for illegal receipt of any benefits (property, rights, services or benefits, including non-material nature) or the last of such benefits, (Wilhelm, 2002). Smolentseva stresses that corruption is not reduced to a primitive bribery, especially in the conditions of market economy, free trade and democracy. Lobbying, favoritism, protectionism, contributions for political purposes, the tradition of the transition of political leaders and public officials to positions of honorary presidents of corporations and private companies, investment of commercial structures at the expense of the state budget, transfer of state property into joint-stock companies, the use of links with criminal communities, etc. are thinly veiled forms of corruption (Smolentseva, 2007).

This interpretation of corruption is a good that covers quite a wide range of acts of corruption. However, the power dissipation is not so much a system-forming sign of corruption, but the consequence of corruption (Osipian, 2009). Power can decompose both inside and outside. The use of social status (official position, authority of office) is one of the ways of corrupt behavior but not his only option.

Results and Discussion

To assess the scale of corruption in higher education is sufficient to refer to some research results. So, the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization (UNESCO) States that corruption in universities is causing serious damage to the education system in the world. It is difficult not to agree with the statement of the former Director-General of UNESCO Mazury, who said that "corruption has taken such proportions that its harm is not only expressed in billions of dollars of losses, but also in undermining the vital efforts to achieve the goal "education for all". It deprives little children of wealthy parents the opportunity to attend school, leaving schools and students without funds for the purchase of equipment, reduces the quality of teaching and, as a consequence, the quality of education in General (Gray, 1997). At issue is the future of our youth. Inaction can lead to catastrophic consequences." The Russian Federation is no exception the turnover of the corruption of funds annually is around 5.5 billion dollars, which is comparable with the GDP of a small country. In this regard, mark Cleveland, Favo, Frecka and Owens, high school today is a giant black market, on which revolve billions (Cleveland et al., 2009).

And despite the fact that the fight against bribery in higher education organizations at the level of teachers adopted the national scale, in contrast, for example, corruption in the allocation of Federal grants allocated to the universities, trade of scientific degrees, "undocumented economy of budgetary funds" educational organizations, using human resources of the University or its divisions in the interest of the appropriate levels of management, which the investigating authorities do not pay enough attention and in some cases legal practices generally have not developed effective tools for the objective of fixing certain forms of corrupt relationships, however, this kind of corruption not losing ground (Johnson, 2004). And in turn, increasingly appears in the media information about the violations of article 290 of the criminal code, employees of institutions of higher education.

Here, however, is not without certain conceptual and terminological inconsistencies between legal doctrine, the law and established judicial practice. First, the criminal code of the Russian Federation, as the main normative act that establishes the legal responsibility of the teacher as the subject of corruption relations does not cover the majority of the volume of corruption per se, due to special formulations of subjectivity articles covering crimes of corruption listed in the Russian criminal law. As noted by Shmakov, with the exception of article 290, according to which "the liability is incurred by a person who permanently, temporarily or on special authority performing organization organizational-administrative or administrative-economic functions, entrusted to it by law, regulation, order or decree of a superior officer or by the competent authority or officer. Such functions the teacher performs in extremely rare cases, such as the conduct of the entrance or state examination". In this regard, in the theory of criminal law continuously fierce debate about the merits of involving teachers to criminal liability and the legality of their consideration as subjects of corrupt relationships. Secondly, there are a sufficient number of corrupt relationships that are not subject to legal qualification at all or are actually unprovable from the point of view of observance of rules of criminal procedure and expressed as a specific kind of corrupt relations (Martirossian, 2004).

"Classical" forms of corrupt relationships in the educational environment have undergone considerable evolution. Currently, almost every student knows about the criminal liability for bribery. On the other hand, the procedure of transfer of funds is becoming more subtle, difficult fixed and provable in the criminal process form. Thus, teachers prefer to provoke bribery by the student with the artificial complexity of the procedure of control and instead open his falsification mimic the response of the student in the exam or competition. Bribery disguised as tutoring (Cheloukhine, 2017). In some cases, the practice of "legalize" this form of corruption is marked in universities; where through the system of additional education is carried out simulation of the delivery of academic debt of a student. The subjects of educational process have been successfully used paid civil transactions as disguised bribes (e.g. buying books, teaching materials, authored by the teacher) (Zagainova, 2007). Writing scientific managers and members of the state certifying commissions on the order of theses to the student, ensuring a positive assessment of the qualification material, can also be attributed to shadow transactions. Trade keys for tests of current and boundary control objects often replaces the bribe for the signature in the record book during the exam. Thus, the characteristic of the subject the composition of such corrupt relationships may include not only the compiler of the texts or the leading teacher and technical staff computer labs with access to the software tasks (Zagainova, 2007). The list of corrupt forms join "kickbacks" for unjustified scholarships, grants and other financial incentives student, lecturer or researcher of the University. However, these corrupt relationships between the teacher and student do not exhaust all forms of corruption interaction in higher education. Quite common become corrupt connections between the teacher and the administrative staff of the University. So, unreasonably high fees for publications or lectures, the "Commission" for providing services, illegal fees and etc. forms of payment have become routine. Unjustified funding for the higher-level Manager (Dean, head) employee (teacher) to maintain control over the falsification of the results of the educational process, protection hermetic students is also reflected in the informal practices of educational organizations (Osipian, 2009).

Corruption in the educational process represents only the tip of the "iceberg" of corrupt relationships in high school. The second-largest level of corrupt relations and crimes covered by the structure of management of higher educational institutions. So, the illegal sale of state assets to the educational organization or the right to use (lease), including land plots for the "roll-back" (bribe), is fixed by the officials. A characteristic feature of corruption is the use of management of higher educational institutions underachieving students for personal gain. For example, reducing the organization's costs is prohibited by law, the use of forced student labor, the replacement of the economic costs of establishment and at the same time allowing you to assign Fund savings associated with the teaching staff and scientific employees with unpaid and non-work duties of work, including orders of the representatives of public authorities, etc. practices with the aim of obtaining both economic and status benefits (resource political influence), became a part of Russian reality (Osipian, 2009). Thus, it appears that the peak destructive corruption trends in the sphere of education and science should recognize corruption "blocking" of young scientists and the loss of their financial status and access to scientific research. Excessive commercialization of the procedure of protection on the official level makes recognition of the scientific achievements of scientists of almost impossible, leaving this niche mostly officials and businessmen, dramatically increasing the risks of corruption in the functioning of the dissertation councils (Magun, 2011).

Special note to corrupt transactions that have no material expression, in respect of which remains the legislative base of the Russian Federation remains quite weak. So, protectionism is a consequence of informal relations, including kinship, personal. Projection, implemented as a rule, managers of the University (rector, Vice-rector, Dean, head), is to simulate the results of the training of teacher's control, on the basis of personal agreements. Sometimes it is expressed in the forgery of documents of verification (statements) at the level of the deans (Ro?i? & Nisnevich, 2016).

Not spared the practice of providing different intangible services in the public administration and Universities (Stockemer & Sundström, 2014). Trade position in the educational organization is usually accompanied by the exchange of intangible benefits and acts as a kind of shadow "credit", providing the uncertainty of the oncoming obligations of the counterparty in a corrupt deal (Cheloukhine, 2017). At the same time, the practice records the emergence of corruption forms in the educational environment of Universities, caused by modern trends in this field. Thus, increase in requirements of state educational standards; the tightening of procedures for the accreditation of Universities with simultaneous total blockage of the academic councils for defending candidate and doctoral theses of certain professions has led to the practice of using in educational process of "dead souls" from among the teaching staff.

The scale of corruption has reached a critical level, inhibiting the development of not only higher education, but as mentioned above, science. Overreliance Ministry of education indicators on attraction of funds through research funds has created a system of "kick-backs" and "cuts" of large grant payments to universities (Venard, 2009). That is why foreign scientific funds more practice targeted funding model scientists, with the exception of the economic chain of the higher educational institution as an intermediary, illegally appropriating part of the money.

Summing up we can say that, first, the corruption in the institutions of higher education should not be reduced to a bribe for the issuance of the examination or test and second, it is not restricted to the educational process and cannot directly touch the educational services sector (Cheloukhine et al., 2015). At the same time use based on students and workers by the heads of structural divisions of the University for personal gain, accompanied by violation of social and public interests, the practice of "kickbacks" for obtaining access to research funding, commercialization procedures, defenses of dissertations, abuse of administrative power in the economic sphere of Universities greatly expand the types of corruption relations (Ofer, 2012).

Corruption was and remains one of the global challenges facing the world community. As for Russia, the corruption has hit all sectors of society, in almost all spheres of activities and institutions, i.e. it became a systemic problem, without which it is impossible to further the development of the country.

According to the INDEM Foundation annual losses from corruption in Russia amount to 35 billion dollars and the annual cost of all citizens to bribes amount to $2.8 billion, which is comparable to the wages for all Russian state employees. Among the most corrupt institutions are called state authorities at Federal and regional levels, local authorities, law enforcement agencies, courts, police, utilities, political parties, media. In the social sphere, healthcare, education, when conscription bribes become commonplace to address the issue (Altbach, 2013).

The results of the elections, especially the heads of Executive authorities of subjects of the Federation and cities (governors and mayors), foregone conclusion and practically does not depend on the will of the voters (remember the recent gubernatorial elections in Rostov region, Krasnoyarsk territory, the election of the mayor of Nizhny Novgorod).

The main causes of corruption in countries with economies in transition, which now includes Russia, are economic decline, political instability, the underdevelopment and imperfection of the legislation, the inefficiency of government institutions, weak civil society institutions and the lack of strong democratic traditions.

For these reasons, Russia should be added, given the local context, the subject type of political culture, the vast majority of the population of Russia, the weakness of the judiciary, disregard law in favor of profit, with impunity in violation of the law.

Don't argue the fat that the socio-economic consequences of corruption for the state is extremely negative (Beck & Lee, 2002).

The international community began to recognize that corruption, until recently considered a harmless and "not resulting in casualties" problem, actually, very expensive and the level of its damage can be very different, depending on the country and industry.

Corruption has a corrosive impact on all spheres of society, namely the economic, social, policy.

In the economic sphere, corruption contributes to the emergence and development of a number of negative phenomena and processes:

• Expansion of the shadow economy, resulting in the loss of the state fiscal levers of the economy, worsening social problems because of the failure of budgetary obligations.

• Violation of the mechanism of market competition, because the winner is not the one who is competitive and one who was able to get the benefits in exchange for bribes. This contributes to the monopolistic tendencies in the economy, reducing its efficiency and to discredit the ideas of free competition.

• Low growth rate of the number of effective private owners (as a consequence to discredit the ideas of a market economy).

• Decrease in the efficiency of use of budgetary funds, in particular in the allocation of government orders and credits; thus hampering the effective implementation of government programmes.

• Higher prices for goods and services due to corruption "overhead", resulting in the consumer suffering.

• The imbalance of competitive market mechanisms as the promotion of goods and services to the market through bribery reduces market efficiency and, ultimately, discredited the idea of free market competition.

• The unequal distribution of income enriches the subjects of corruption relations at the expense of other members of society.

• Loss of trust of market agents to the ability of government to establish and respect fair rules of the market game: investment climate covered with clouds and therefore not solved the problem of overcoming the recession, the renewal of fixed assets.

• An increase in the extent of corruption in non-governmental organizations, which leads to a decrease in the efficiency of their work.

• To ensure favorable conditions for the formation and development of organized crime and the shadow economy. This leads to a reduction of tax revenues to the state budget, the outflow of capital abroad and hampers the ability of the state to effectively carry out their economic, political and social functions.

The growth of corruption also gives rise to the following serious social consequences:

• Huge funds are held by social development, exacerbating a budget crisis, reducing the ability of government to solve social problems.

• Aggravated income inequality, acute poverty of a large part of the population; the redistribution of resources in favor of narrow oligarchic groups comes at the expense of the most vulnerable segments of the population.

• Corruption is a significant difference between declared and real values and provides members of the public "double standard" of morality and behavior. This leads to the fact that the measure of all in society are money, a person's importance is determined by the size of his personal fortune regardless of the methods of its production, the devaluation and the scrapping of the regulators of civilized social behavior: norms of morality, law, religion, public opinion, etc.

• Discredited law as a primary tool of regulation of activity of civil society: in the public consciousness establishes the idea of defenselessness of citizens before the face of crime and in the face of authority.

• Corruption of law enforcement officials contributes to the consolidation of organized crime, which, with corrupt group of officials and businessmen, further enhanced as it receives the possibility of entering political power, increasing, thus, the freedom of their own actions in the process of money laundering.

• Increases social tensions, which ultimately threatens the effective development of the economy and political stability in the country.

In the political sphere, the negative effects of corruption manifested in the following:

• The decline of trust in the government, the growth of exclusion, which may facilitate the transition to other, more rigid form of government dictatorship.

• Corruption undermines the country's prestige in the international arena, contributes to its political and economic isolation.

• Corruption contributes to a shift of policy objectives from the national to ensure the ruling oligarchic clans and groups.

• Shift of goals in politics, from national development to the ruling oligarchic groups.

• Reduced the prestige of the country in the international arena, increasing the threat to its economic and political isolation.

• Disappointment of the citizens in the values of democracy, the effectiveness of civil society institutions and political competition.

In developing countries corruption has hampered national, social, economic and political development, public resources are allocated inefficiently and the level of social mistrust increases. As a consequence, decreases the volume of foreign investments, industrial productivity and efficiency of administration and underestimated the legitimacy of the state. This, in turn, leads to political instability and deterioration of infrastructure, health and education course.

Education is the only specialized subsystem of society, the objective function has the same purpose of the society. If the various spheres and branches of economy produce a certain material and spiritual products and services for society, the education system produces the man himself, affecting his intellectual, moral, aesthetic and physical development. This determines the leading social function of education humanistic.

According to many experts in the higher education system of Russia it is urgent to restore order, because it is in deep crisis. The reason for that is the high level of corruption that destroys the system from within. For anybody not a secret that money today can enroll in any institution of higher education of the country or simply buy a diploma, you can open your own UNIVERSITY license phony or real. Moreover, this market has become so stable that there appeared clear rates. For example, as the President of the Russian Fund of education Sergey Komkov: "Counterfeit diploma about higher education costs about 30-50 thousand rubles, if it is carried out for all documents in an educational institution, the cost increases to 500-600 thousand. As for the cost of licenses for the opening of the Universities, the officials receive more bribes: from 50 to 150 thousands the license for one specialty and 200-500 thousand dollars for multiple specialties. Accreditation will cost from 300 thousand to 1.5 million dollars".

A huge number of higher educational institutions of the Russian Federation on the date determined by the high level of bribery. In fact, these institutions of higher professional education do not give any education, what the education level of the society decreases.

According to some researchers, the corruption in the system of higher professional education leads to a number of consequences, some of them are:

• Undermining the constitutional principle of equal opportunities. This principle is usually called "free education". That is, the starting points are initially not equal to those who can pay bribes and for those who cannot do it.

• Moral degradation of the society.

• The loss of institutions of higher education the principles of objectivity, integrity and high ethical standards, deprives the Institute of higher education is public support. The growth of corruption discredited the very essence of University education.

• Reduction of the level of knowledge, hence the deterioration of the quality of human capital.

Corruption in the education system has a more dangerous social implications than, for example, in politics or business. School accredited by bribery, will the graduates of low professional level.

Bribery within the University limits the competition and the teaching staff and students, which significantly reduces the quality of education. In addition, bribery in institutions of higher education leads to the fact that the rating of its students in the labor market is significantly reduced: corruption reputation of educational institutions has serious negative consequences for its graduates.

Education potentially serves two functions in the labor market: investments in human capital and improving productivity. The state expects that each additional year of higher education increases earnings, because the student acquires new knowledge, skills and values.

First, both the student and society gain from private investment in higher education. Second, higher education can be for employers an indication that the student has the broad powers that he is honest that he has the potential productive worker, i.e., it is to be a criterion for recruitment.

Corruption reduces both private and social benefits of investment in education. For example, if a student buys an inflated valuation, then it fades motivation to learn. Promotion less dependent on knowledge and skills than the level of welfare and ability to pay for this promotion. Signaling function of education is also reduced if there is high level of corruption among the teaching staff and administrative staff. The fact that a complete education is losing touch with the abilities of students if the enrolment to study and overestimation for sale. The employer does not know whether the student has graduated and did it successfully thanks to their abilities or has acquired a diploma and evaluation illegally, dishonestly. The differences in abilities between students completing a corrupt program, more significant than if they were not trained for such programmes. Even if the student enrolled in a corrupt educational institution, honest and has great abilities, the value of his level of education is reduced.

The employer, who has the choice of candidates, reduces the risk of hiring an unproductive employee if avoiding graduates of corrupt institutions or programs and hires only students of educational institutions, faculties, programs having good reputation. If the employer adopts the staff graduate enrolled in a corrupt program, then such a person will have to accept significantly lower wages and to prove to the employer their competence.

So, to sum up "such a pattern emerges":

• Corruption in the system of higher professional education the state is not profitable. The "experts" leaving the walls of the corrupt higher educational institutions, does not represent any value to the economy. It turns out that the state bears the financial cost of training each student (this refers to training on a budgetary basis) and returns the output or what. Even if a student to study on a paid basis, it only compensates for the training costs. In any case, the state in the plus comes out.

• Corruption in the system of higher education is not beneficial to the University. The fact of the corruption of the educational organization becomes known at once. Students are eager to share information about opportunities to take tests and exams with your classmates. And former students, in General, boast the ability to purchase the evaluation and sometimes a diploma to anyone interested in this information. Therefore, the reputation of institutions of higher vocational education suffers. The prestige it falls. The number of people willing to join the ranks of his students is reduced. And here the UNIVERSITY has a financial loss.

And finally, corruption in higher education is not beneficial to the student. At least in the long term. Yes, indeed, in the period of study, this does not want to think. Just want to pass a test or exam and it is advisable not to contribute to this effort. But in the end and after that comes the realization that the knowledgeable specialist you never took place. Even if you manage to get a job, as the professional unsuitability of graduates to become apparent. And in the best case, the newly minted employee will remain in that position, which he received at the device to work. About career development is not out of the question.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Turning to the studies of some authors, showed that the main forms of corruption in education, including higher, include:

• Misuse of budgetary funds.

• Bribe for the accreditation of educational institutions.

• Illegal obtaining of evidence and documents on education.

• Unauthorized admission to the school without taking into account the results of the competition.

• Soliciting teachers during the sessions (excessive demands in the exams and tests and offer to drop them altogether or to put evaluation just for "reward").

• Pressure students who do not wish to teach the subject, teachers (the imposition of a bribe).

• Pressure on teachers from peers or management to force them to put passing scores on the examinations and tests to specific students or groups of students.

For example, as our own study of all these crimes of corruption in the higher education system, according to the data posted on the official websites of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee in the southern Federal district for the period from 2013 to 2015, there are only a few of them. In most cases, it was extortion for taking tests, exams, employees of educational institutions.

As mentioned in the work, this fact does not necessarily indicate that other forms of corruption in the higher education system are extremely rare. This situation can be folding because the other type of corruption associated with the turnover of funds in large and sometimes extra-large sizes. And then there is the temptation to be part of this scheme, the desire to "be in proportion" closes the eyes of the law-enforcement bodies, performing accreditation of educational institutions on what is happening lawlessness.

In support of this statement speaks criminological characteristics of offender commits a crime of corruption in institutions of higher education, conducted in the second Chapter of this work. Of all the detainees for the period from 2013 to 2015, 22.9% are teachers, lecturers of the departments, 20% heads of departments. Workers for their illegal actions take the amounts not representing any interest for bodies which were party to other more lucrative corrupt deals. But to accomplish the "plan" of detection of corruption crimes, they just may be amiss. Indeed, it is very unfortunate that every year the teachers of the universities join the ranks of corrupt criminals. Persons, who have always been an example to follow, now become the object of gossip. Educators who, through their illegal actions denigrate their colleagues, who never commit such crimes. In General loses confidence in the education system as a whole.

Having considered the negative economic and social consequences of corruption in the higher education system, left open the question: "Who, in General, benefit from corruption in this sphere?” This question has arisen not casually. Researchers vying for any one year "shout" about the consequences that is causing corruption in the system of higher education. From the most "minor" - the inability of employment of graduates of educational institutions corrupt to a colossal loss to the economy of the Russian Federation. However, corruption in the system of professional education has not abated, despite all measures to combat it. And the state's interest in its speedy eradication.

As already mentioned, the prevention of corruption in the context of the criminal code and the civil code, not much different from the prevention of corruption at all. The subject of the crime and in one and in another case one. The penalty in both cases provided by the criminal code. Therefore, the prevention of corruption crime should be put emphasis.

Prevention, third-party research presented in the third Chapter, should be very effective. Some are aimed at prevention of manifestations of corruption on the part of educators, the other for the illegal actions of a student that may tempt a teacher to commit crimes of corruption. But still, once again I want to say that prevention should start at an earlier age. When a person has not developed certain stereotypes, when the idea of standards did not have time to distort the acquired life experience. It is the education of the younger generation in the spirit of morality and decency conceals a huge potential. Therefore, prevention of corruption must begin with secondary school and become one of the main methods of dealing with it.


  1. Altbach, P.G. (2013). Corruption: In: The International Imperative in Higher Education (pp. 15-19). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  2. Beck, A. & Lee, R. (2002). Attitudes to corruption amongst Russian police officers and trainees. Crime, Law and Social Change, 38(4), 357-372. doi:10.1023/a:1021140413153.
  3. Beets, S.D. (2005). Understanding the demand-side issues of international corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(1), 65-81. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-3824-3.
  4. Brovkin, V.N. (2003). Corruption in the 20th century Russia. Crime, Law and Social Change, 40(2), 195-230. doi:10.1023/a:1025741929051.
  5. Cheloukhine, S. & Haberfeld, M.R. (2011). Corruption in Russia. In: Past, Present and Future Russian Organized Corruption Networks and their International Trajectories (pp. 53-84). New York: Springer New York.
  6. Cheloukhine, S. (2017). Character, areas and level of corruption in Russia policing in Russia. In: Combating Corruption since the 2009 Police Reforms (pp. 1-6). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  7. Cheloukhine, S. (2017). Corruption and bribery in law enforcement and state civil servants policing in Russia. In: Combating Corruption since the 2009 Police Reforms (pp. 35-59). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  8. Cheloukhine, S., Kutnjak Ivkovic, S., Haq, Q. & Haberfeld, M.R. (2015). Police integrity in Russia. In: S. Kutnjak Ivkovic & M.R. Haberfeld (Eds.), Measuring Police Integrity across the World: Studies from Established Democracies and Countries in Transition (pp. 153-181). New York, Springer New York.
  9. Cleveland, M., Favo, C.M., Frecka, T.J. & Owens, C.L. (2009). Trends in the international fight against bribery and corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 199-244. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0383-7.
  10. Cohen, S. I. (2009). The state intensive system: economic transitions economic systems analysis and Policies. In: Explaining Global Differences, Transitions and Developments (pp. 167-224). London: Palgrave Macmillan, UK.
  11. Gray, M. (1997). Russia fights crime and corruption. Trends in Organized Crime, 2(4), 32-33. doi:10.1007/s12117-997-1068-1.
  12. Johnson, R.A. (2004). Corruption in four countries. In: R.A. Johnson (Ed.), The Struggle against Corruption: A Comparative Study (pp. 145-165). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
  13. Magun, A. (2011). Higher education in Russia: Is there a way out of a neoliberal impasse? In: B. Rehbein (Ed.), Globalization and Inequality in Emerging Societies (pp. 148-171). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  14. Maloney, W.H. & Kelly, R.J. (2000). Notes on school-based crime fighting: international lessons in Moral Education. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(2), 71-90. doi:10.1023/a:1009462600766.
  15. Martirossian, J. (2004). Russia and her ghosts of the past. In: R.A. Johnson (Ed.), The Struggle against Corruption: A Comparative Study (pp. 81-108). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
  16. Ofer, G. (2012). Twenty years later and the socialist heritage is still kicking: The case of Russia. In: G. Roland (Ed.), Economies in Transition: The Long-Run View (pp. 222-253). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  17. Osipian, A.L. (2009). Endogenous economic growth in Ukraine. In: The Impact of Human Capital on Economic Growth: A Case Study in Post-Soviet Ukraine (pp. 51-106). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
  18. Osipian, A.L. (2009). Vouchers, tests, loans, privatization: Will they help tackle corruption in Russian higher education? Prospects, 39(1), 47. doi:10.1007/s11125-009-9117-y.
  19. Osipian, A.L. (2015). Global and local: Standardized testing and corruption in admissions to Ukrainian Universities. In: C.A. Brown (Ed.), Globalization, International Education Policy and Local Policy Formation: Voices from the Developing World (pp. 215-234). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  20. Ro?ic, P. & Nisnevich, Y.A. (2016). Lustration matters: a radical approach to the problem of corruption. Studies in Comparative International Development, 51(3), 257-285. doi:10.1007/s12116-015-9179-1.
  21. Smolentseva, A. (2007). Educational inequality in Russia. In: R. Teese, S. Lamb, M. Duru-Bellat & S. Helme (Eds.), International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy (pp. 476-489). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  22. Stockemer, D. & Sundstr?m, A. (2014). Corruption and citizens? satisfaction with democracy in Europe: what is the empirical linkage? In: T. Debiel & A. Gawrich (Eds.), (Dys-)Functionalities of Corruption: Comparative Perspectives and Methodological Pluralism (pp. 137-157). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
  23. Venard, B. (2009). Organizational isomorphism and corruption: An empirical research in Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 59-76. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9984-9.
  24. Wilhelm, P. G. (2002). International validation of the corruption perceptions index: implications for business ethics and entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(3), 177-189. doi:10.1023/a:1013882225402.
  25. Zagainova, A. (2007). Challenges of anti-corruption policies in post-communist countries. In: S. Bracking (Ed.), Corruption and Development: The Anti-Corruption Campaigns (pp. 138-154). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Get the App